|
|
Posted by name on 01/02/06 07:56
Dave D wrote:
> "name" <dohduhdah@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1135988103.171869.153680@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> OK, I'll keep this brief and reply to the most important points.
>
> >>
> >> No, an unjust, clunky law is *never* acceptable.
> >
> > Taxing p2p might equally well be unjust and clunky.
> >
> But it's a hell of an improvent on charging *every* internet user a tax to
> cover downloads of copyrighted material.
I doubt it, given that copyright applies not just to audiovisual
content that is
distributed on p2p mostly.
>
>
> >> I just don't get this idea where you believe that people would be
> >> *forced*
> >> to be compensated for their work, against their wishes. It doesn't have
> >> to
> >> be like that, even with your model. The money simply gets distributed
> >> amongst copyright holders, it doesn't have to involve private individuals
> >> offering their own material for free.
> >
> > But private individuals can be copyright holders just the same. If I
> > write a story and post it on usenet, I'm the copyright holder of that
> > story. If other people massively email that story against my will, that
> > constitutes copyright infringement.
>
> The key part being 'against your will'. What if I want my works to be freely
> distributed?
So what? What if you want to own the entire universe... you can want
anything, but
that doesn't mean your desire is reasonable.
>
> > All I'm saying is that we don't have the technology to differentiate
> > between various intentions and preferences regarding publication.
>
> The owner of the material states this on his/her website or includes a
> 'readme' with his/her program. It works fine. We know he/she wants no
> reimbursment for his/her work.
No, because anyone can simply modify this readme file included with the
program.
>
> > It's even a question as to whether or not we have the technology to
> > compensate for copyright infringement (in a fair way) in the first
> > place. Since this would require a kind of global centralized agency
> > exactly keeping track of what is copyrighted and by whom (and if
> > applicable, under what terms).
> >
> How do you think the RIAA goons catch people downloading on P2P? They have a
> database of artists who belong to their 'music mafia' organisation, and can
> analyse data for their artists' material.
But they are completely ineffective in their efforts to prevent people
from freely exchanging stuff on p2p, especially in other countries
where p2p sharing is legal in some respects (like downloading is legal
in the Netherlands).
Attempts to enforce copyrights would only be effective if an agency
that seeks to protect these rights would have global jurisdiction.
>
> >>
> >> > I think that the only fair way to ensure financial compensation would
> >> > be
> >> > to simply compensate anyone who contributes something originally,
> >> > regardless
> >> > whether they would like their creations to be shared freely or whether
> >> > they would
> >> > object to this.
> >>
> >> How do you propose to force someone to accept payment?
> >
> > Just like you force people to pay tax. If you come up with something
> > original and your creation is shared massively, you get compensated
> > financially for your efforts, whether you like it or not.
>
> You didn't answer the question. How do you force someone to accept payment?
Well, you can answer your own question, if you can force people to pay
money (tax), you can also force people to receive money. For instance
you might give them a tax discount. If you can assure people pay taxes,
you can also assure people pay taxes with a discount for instance.
>
> >The idea here
> > is to have some kind of uniform scheme of compensation that doesn't
> > require people to depend on major corporations (like the recording
> > industry) to enforce their copyrights.
> > The recording industry and their traditional means of production and
> > distribution are made redundant by the internet. Copyright served a
> > role in the past protecting traditional publishers from unfair
> > competition amongst their peers and what's needed now is a reformed
> > kind of copyright and associated financial recompense that works for
> > the internet and acknowledges decentralized publication where everybody
> > is free to copy/share anything they like.
> >
> >>
> >> >We simply don't have the technology to differentiate
> >> > between public domain and copyrighted material.
> >>
> >> How do you think the RIAA/MPAA et al do it? An ISP can filter out P2P
> >> users
> >> by monitoring for a bandwidth/port usage profile, then after they've
> >> narrowed it down, analyse traffic for known copyrighted material.
> >
> > No need to filter out p2p use. You'd simply have to monitor or filter
> > all internet traffic, which is done anyway because of terrorism
> > threats.
> > The problem lies with the notion of 'known copyrighted material'. Who
> > decides what is copyrighted and what not?
> >There is no global copyright
> > agency yet.
> > Copyright legislation differs for various countries and the internet is
> > a global phenomenon requiring a global solution if we want to end up
> > with a fair system of compensation for copyright infringement.
> >
> >>
> >> > Alternatively we could completely abolish this approach and declare
> >> > that anything belongs to the public domain.
> >> >
> >> >> The less governments get involved in the evolution of the WWW the
> >> >> better. The more governments get involved, the less freedom of speech
> >> >> we'll
> >> >> see on the web.
> >> >
> >> > It's not necessarily a problem if the government gets involved,
> >>
> >> If governments get involved, the web would be a very different place- for
> >> the worse.
> >
> > Governments are already involved. Freedom of speech online doesn't mean
> > that you can peddle childpornography or plans for terroristic
> > activities.
> > So I'd have to rephrase my earlier statement "having the right to
> > access any information I want" to "having the right to access any
> > information I want as long
> > as this information doesn't compromise the freedom of others".
> >
> >>
> >> >as long
> >> > as the government is not primarily motivated to protect the interests
> >> > of major corporations but balances these with the rights of individual
> >> > users.
> >>
> >> Can you see that happening? One has only to look at the relationship the
> >> US
> >> and the EU has with big business to see what will happen. You might want
> >> to
> >> take a look at the case of French MEP, Janelly Fourtou.
> >>
> >> http://swpat.ffii.org/gasnu/jfourtou/index.en.html
> >>
> >> Look who her husband is!
> >>
> >> She was also responsible for pushing draconian anti-P2P legislation
> >> through.
> >> How nice of her to abuse her position and push her husband's business
> >> interests through, that's hardly putting the people first.
> >
> > I agree governments would have to undergo a major reformation before we
> > can rely on them to come up with a fair system of compensation for
> > copyright infringement.
> >
>
> We'll be waiting until armageddon for that to happen.
Technology like the internet (where information can travel the globe at
lightspeed) might have the equivalent impact on human culture as the
invention of scripture.
With scripture anything could be recorded in a more permanent form (a
kind of human extraneous memory). With the internet anything can be
accessed from anywhere (on the globe) on anytime. Books dramatically
changed human culture and the web is also likely to change things and
probably at a faster pace.
>
> .
> >> >
> >> > Who's talking about private organisations?
> >>
> >> What do you think a recording company is? I'm talking about a government
> >> 'shopping centre' tax charged to anyone entering, paid back to businesses
> >> to
> >> cover losses, which I don't think is a bad analogy. In your model, we the
> >> internet users would have to pay a levy to the recording companies. The
> >> fact
> >> that the government would administer this and collect the money doesn't
> >> change that fact.
> >
> > No, because recording companies will cease to exist.
>
> You'll be waiting a long time for that pipe dream!
Look at the speed by which tv has become available to most people
in developed countries, internet might be trailing behind it closely.
>
> >> >> That's a pretty atrocious analogy! :-)
> >> >
> >> > Why?
> >>
> >> Because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever!
> >
> > I think it does, given that most people using the internet are also
> > likely to infringe copyrights
>
> Not really, I don't believe that. There are websites out there which
> infringe, but that's their lookout, not the person viewing the page.
How many personal webpages are there made by individual people using
graphics, animations, text or audio without the proper permissions? How
many people have saved a graphic from a website without being allowed
to do so. I think copyright infringement is probably more common than
you'd think. Also, it's not clear where
the line lies exactly between personal use (or time-shifting) and
copyright infringement.
>
> >(similarly to how p2p users are likely to
> > do it).
> > Most people have infringed an occasional copyright by mailing a graphic
> > ripped from a webpage in their xmas email.
>
> That depends, it could fall under 'fair use', or the webpage owner might not
> care.
Fair use and copyright are notions with a different legal
interpretation in various countries.
>
> > If people are not infringing copyrights while using the internet, they
> > probably lack a clue what the heck is possible with their internet
> > connection, rather than a deliberate decision not to engage in
> > copyright infringement.
>
> That's a bit cynical!
I think it's not cynical to claim that humans tend to display a herd
mentality sometimes.
It might take a while to seep in for the realization that it's possible
to convey any audiovisual or symbolic information on a global scale.
Given you receive some piece of information from someone (let's say
some audiovisual content or a piece of text), how are you to determine
whether or not the originator of that information has any preferences
about how he would like the information in question to be handled
regarding distribution and sharing?
For humans it can be hard to change their habits. Like the economy of
physical
commodities and money as a universal substitute for it. Money is made
in such a way that it is difficult to duplicate. For other objects,
duplication is not exactly possible easily. If you have a painting by
Picasso in your house, it's very valuable, but that has something to do
with how scarce such paintings are and how difficult it would be to
duplicate one. Imagine you had a priceless digital picasso in your
house on cdrom. That's pretty impossible to imagine, because the fact
that you have it on cd means that it can easily be duplicated and means
that it's not scarce in a natural way like a painting or sculpture, or
even a book.
It would be relatively easy to duplicate a book (or the information in
a book) compared to reproducing a painting or sculpture by anyone with
any talent.
It doesn't take any tallent or intelligence to duplicate the
information in one of the great works of literature. On the computer
it's even easier to duplicate a book or painting or sculpture in
digital form. At this point, when these 'physical commodities' like
paintings sculptures or books are abstractly available as information
in digital form, we can duplicate them virtually free from any costs.
Hence it becomes virtually impossible to associate a price with these
pieces of digital information, because it doesn't obey the usual
economic laws of supply and demand that govern the price of things.
Just like we don't associate prices with characters, words, numbers,
stories or movies. A movie in the theatre has a different price from
the same movie on tv or on video, or on a p2p network.
There are also differences with making a painting public, publication
of a book or movie. With the painting there are less wories about the
copyright being infringed, but you are also unlikely to reach a wide
audience of people who actually witness the painting in person. When
you publish a book, you can reach a much wider audience, but this comes
at the price of people being able to circumvent the distribution
channels preferred by the author.
>
> > I think the number of internet users that deliberately refrain from
> > copyright infringement while extensively using the internet as a
> > pastime is negligible.
> >
>
> But most people aren't diehard, savvy web surfers, that's the whole point!
More people are likely to be in the future, given that people who grow
up with
technology are more accustomed to using it effectively.
> Most people use the information super highway as... an information super
> highway!
People exchange information online, often the information didn't come
from themselves
and often the information doesn't have an accompanying notice about how
the people ultimately responsible for its availability feel about
certain methods of distributing it.
>
> >>
> >> >You might pay an information tax just in the case (which is kind
> >> > of likely) that you end up downloading stuff made by someone who'd like
> >> > to receive financial compensation for their creative efforts.
> >>
> >> You're contradicting yourself here. Why don't you apply this logic to my
> >> proposal of a P2P tax? You argue that my idea is unfair because not
> >> everyone
> >> uses P2P for illegal downloads, yet argue that it's OK to charge
> >> *everyone*
> >> who uses the internet to pay, even though a lot of people will pay for
> >> something they won't use?! You can't have it both ways! You say it's
> >> likely
> >> that people using the internet will end up downloading copyrighted
> >> material.
> >> I suggest it's *far* more likely a P2P user will end up doing just that.
> >> There are far more legal web users than P2P users.
> >
> > I doubt it, given the number of people that email attachments (or use
> > chatprograms to send files) with audio or graphics made by others.
>
> Even if that were true, exchanging files via chat or email is a personal,
> one to one deal. P2P puts a file in the shop window for all and sundry to
> download. You might have noticed that the RIAA are focusing their efforts on
> P2P, and that's because it is by far the most significant mode of
> distribution.
P2p ideed just makes filesharing most convenient. But essentially, what
happens is no different from what somebody can accomplish by email or
with a personal website. The only difference is that the activities are
perfomed manually if you send people binary attachments on request or
incidentally and p2p software automates the process so anyone is able
to receive the desired information with the one providing it playing a
passive roll by just ensuring that the p2p application runs with shared
files and the computer remains hooked up to the internet. P2p just
ultimately demonstrates the power of the internet as a means to share
information that consists of large chunks (like audiovisual stuff). Why
is it that we always hear the RIAA bitching about copyrights when
people who write books are just as threatened by p2p which would
certainly allow their books to be shared equally easily than movies or
music?
I think the most essential difference is that it's difficult to rip a
book compared to a movie or audiocd.
Just like there are no organizations of painters or sculptors who are
threatening p2p or their devotees with lawsuits. I have a collection of
25000 digitized graphics depicting art. I don't think I'd ever receive
threats about copyright infringement when sharing that online on p2p.
>
> > Peer to peer just means internet traffic between two individuals.
> > If I post to a newsgroup, it's also peer to peer,
>
> No it isn't. You uploaded it to a news server, it is not P2P by any stretch
> of the term.
The binary newsgroups on usenet are a very popular forum to share
movies,
music, etc.. They are also listed at www.slyck.com which concern all
issues related to filesharing (and unrestricted filesharing online is
closely associated with p2p).
>
> >whether or not my
> > posting includes a binary attachment doesn't make any difference.
>
> Difference to what?
Whether or not it constitutes copyright infringement.
>
> > So maybe the whole discussion would make more sense if some terms would
> > be more rigorously defined. 'P2p' and 'copyright infringement' are
> > pretty vague terms when you think about them.
> >
>
> No they're not.
They are not defined uniformely globally, like 'personal use'.
>
> P2P= file transfer between two user's PCs, by popular definition-
> specifically facilitated by a filesharing network.
If someone downloads a file from a newsgroup, transfer of that file has
also occurred
between two user's PCs and just a little while ago you claimed binary
newsgroups
are an instance of p2p sharing?
But I guess you mean an instance of direct transferral between two PCs.
I think the RIAA has just as much to worry about binary newsgroups
compared to
distribution by p2p if you insist on viewing binary newsgroups and p2p
as separate
means of filesharing.
> Copyright infringement= the copying, use or distribution of a song, movie or
> other work against the wishes of the author, creator or owner of that work.
The desires of creators or owners of work have little influence on
legalistic differences between fair use, copyright, publication, etc..
Suppose I create something and put it on my website with the notice
that nobody under any circumstances may duplicate it.
In another country, there might be a law that says people are free to
copy something for personal use so their laws are in conflict with my
desired means to communicate my creative output.
>
> >
> > Well, what if their way of making a living has become technologically
> > obsolete, like people making a living producing steam engines were put
> > out of their job when petrol engines were invented?
> >
>
> Just because someone comes along with a new way of storing a reproduction of
> their work does *not* change the fact they created that work and own the
> rights to it.
It does. Technological developments can and do influence how we can
define, grant and implement rights. Copyright wasn't around when people
made their first cavepaintings. It developed when people began to
publish their work (massive reproduction).
Now that massive reproduction has become available universally and
cheaply, it means it's time to reconsider copyright as a notion to
protect the financial interests of people producing or owning
'intellectual property'.
>
> > You are talking about the notion of copyright as it used to be
> > interpreted in the context of centralized distributors competing with
> > each other (not with consumers). They could use that argument to sue
> > other centralized distributors for copyright infringement.
>
> I am not! I am simply disputing the argument you appear to have put forward
> that musicians, artists or whatever cannot own the rights to their work just
> because the digital age is here.
It does, because the digital age has revolutionalized the ramifications
of massive reproduction. Copyright is something developed by humans
with certain intentions to achieve a specific purpose. With every
advancement in technology copyrights have been rendered less effective
as a means to protect the rights of people creating or owning
'intellectual property' that is suitable for mass reproduction.
The file sharing 'copyright infringement' problem is just the same
problem as lawsuits over the availability of videorecorders or
photocopy machines as they have made it easier to duplicate movies or
books previously.
A computer just performs all these functions infinitely more
efficiently (duplicating books, movies, music, ...).
Given a library, a photocopier and a lot of paper, it would take you
quite some effort to duplicate the entire contents of that library.
On a computer, you could store the entire contents of that library and
copy everything virtually instantly (well, ok it takes a while, but you
catch my drift, the only effort it involves in typing "copy A to B" on
the keyboard, regardless of the size of the library).
>
> > It wouldn't work anymore if, hypothetically speaking, people gained the
> > mental ability to transmit thoughts to the degree that they would be
> > able to communicate complete books, movies or concerts to each other,
> > since it would no longer be practically feasible to randomly sue
> > individuals when everybody has access to 'copyrighted material' so
> > easily. Simply put, if people would acquire this ability miraculously
> > somehow, it would put publishers out of business.
> > I think this can be seen as a metaphor for what we currently see
> > happening with the internet. It has become so easy for people to
> > communicate complete works of art (music, movies, concerts, etc..) that
> > publishers no longer have any role to play in the production and
> > distribution of such works of art.
> >
> >>
> >> The current model is deeply flawed, and I'd like to see the recording
> >> industry extinct and all the greedy executives cleaning toilets, and the
> >> artists getting paid fairly for their work. However IME this red herring
> >> about 0s and 1s is usually a distraction used by people who cannot admit
> >> to
> >> themselves that they are accessing copyrighted works without paying for
> >> it.
> >
> > I disagree. It's a fundamental discussion about what can be
> > copyrighted.
> > You can't just arbitrarily allow people to copyright some things and
> > deny other
> > people the right to copyright other things.
>
> Who is denying anyone the right to copyright an original work?
I'm denying that copyright is a notion that has been around for ever
and will be around for ever in it's current form.
>
> >You need to have some kind
> > of systematic
> > definition of what it is that can be copyrighted and in this case
> > technology has
> > been rendering our commonly accepted definition of what can be
> > copyrighted and what it means for something to be copyrighted as
> > obsolete.
>
> No it hasn't. You are basing all of this on the erroneous idea that a binary
> reproduction of a work cannot be copyrighted as it is just a string of 0s
> and 1s.
Things can only be effectively copyrighted if you have some means to
detect
and prevent people from infringing those copyrights. This gets more
difficult in
case you distribute your creations globally and everybody has the means
to circumvent the official distribution channels.
>
> > The fact that a bitstring of a million bits can be copied just as
> > easily these days
> > as a single bit means that you can't allow people to copy bits but deny
> > them their right to copy bitstrings as soon as bitstrings get fairly
> > long.
> > There simply is no practical way to sort out the bitstrings that can be
> > copied from the ones that can't be copied, like there used to be a way
> > to sort out which strings of characters could be written/printed in
> > compliance with copyright legislation.
> >
>
> You can reduce anything to absurd arguments like this. A painting is just
> colours on a canvas. A vinyl recording is just a squiggly line formed into a
> spiral, a tape recording is just millions of changes of a magnetic field, a
> book is just paper with ink lines all over it etc etc.
Yes, but don't you see that the reason behind all the copyright
infringement problems
is directly related to the relative ease with which something can be
reproduced?
A painting can't be reproduced/duplicated easily (let aside mass
reproduction).
Copyright didn't develop along with the first cave paintings.
It only came into being when mass reproduction (publication) evolved.
>
> >>
> >>
> >> >So why should I be
> >> > prevented to access
> >> > certain bitstrings that are 'copyrighted'?
> >>
> >> You shouldn't be prevented from accessing them, provided you agree to pay
> >> whoever created the works that those 0s and 1s represent.
> >
> > But who keeps track of who created what?
> >
>
> Wherever copyright is registered. The RIAA and MPAA will have a nice
> database of their artists.
So copyright is enfoced only for people who are backed up with legal
threats by a wealthy organization like the RIAA or MPAA?
Are you saying that individual artists who don't want to do business
with them and don't have the money to sue other people for copyright
infringement can't expect the government to be concerned with their
rights?
>
> >>
> >> >It doesn't make any sense.
> >>
> >> Sure it does. 0s and 1s in this instance are a (almost) perfect
> >> reproduction
> >> of someone else's labours. If they choose to exchange their work or a
> >> reproduction of it for money, that is their right.
> >
> > So if I come up with 111100001011101011101010101111110100000, I can now
> > start charging people money whenever they use that bitstring?
>
> Please tell me you're joking. No, of course you can't copyright a simple
> binary number. If I create a file using this number and give it a mp3, jpg,
> avi etc extension, will I end up with an recognisable artistic creation?
You sure might, given that all mp3s, jpgs, avis, etc.. are just that,
long bitstrings.
Mind you, there is a subtle difference between binary numbers and
bitstrings though.
Binary numbers don't start with one or more 0s (except 0). So
"000111010" is not a binary number, but it is a bitstring. Any piece of
software or digitized information (like an mp3, jpg or avi) is a
bitstring, but not necessarily a binary number.
> I have a feeling you're going to argue next that an mp3 file is a huge binary
> number. well, yes it is, but as a number it cannot be copyrighted. If it
> forms a media file then it is no longer just a number but an audio or video
> file.
Ah, so you're saying a bitstring isn't a bitstring anymore when I use a
name for it like
'music.mp3' which suggests that the bitstring has a meaningful
interpretation as an mp3?
Are you telling me bitstrings can not be copyrighted as bitstrings but
they can be copyrighted if they constitute the contents of an mp3, jpg
or avi file?
>
> >I can sue
> > people for copyright infringement when people use that bitstring
> > without paying me?
>
> No, for the above reasons but also because you blatantly obviously did not
> invent that bitstring.
Are you saying that if I create a bitstring by generating it randomly
on the computer, I'm not the original creator of that bitstring?
If I record some audio from myself (for instance I play my own
composition on an instrument) as an mp3, I suddenly am the original
creator of that bitstring encoded in that mp3?
That's a pretty weird distinction, that the method of producing a
bitstring decides whether or not you have copyright on it.
>
> > If not, how long do you suppose the bitstring has to be before I can
> > start claiming money or sueing people for using my invention without
> > paying me?
>
> You can't, because it would still just be a number. If you create a media
> file and convert it to a binary sequence, ie you digitise it, then that
> would qualify for copyright because it is a representation of an artistic
> work.
Like I said above, it's silly that the method of producing a bitstring
decides
whether or not I have copyright on it. The things being exchanged on
p2p (or online filesharing in general) are nothing but bitstrings
representing audio, video, graphics, etc...
>
> > I don't think it makes any sense whatsoever.
> >
>
> Because you cannot appear to make the practical, real world distinction
> between a digitised recording and a plain binary number.
>
> >>
> >> > Note that 'anything' in the case of digital information amounts to a
> >> > bitstring of arbitrary length. Since that can encode any book, movie,
> >> > music, software, etc.. there could possibly be.
> >> > This is a kind of controversial statement though, because a bitstring
> >> > might also encode childpornography or other controversial 'content'.
> >> > But on a philosophical level, I think it just doesn't make sense to try
> >> > and distinguish between legal and illegal bitstrings for people to
> >> > access or share.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I disagree. I think people are hiding behind this '0s and 1s' philosophy
> >> because they cannot come up with a cogent argument as to why they should
> >> be
> >> able to 'legally' access people's professional artistic creations without
> >> reimbursing them.
> >
> > Just tell me how long bitstrings have to be before people or
> > corporations can own the right to use them.
>
> Length? It isn't just defined by length. If I really must answer such a daft
> question (sorry, but it is :-)) then it would have to be of sufficient
> length, and in the correct sequence, so that when it forms a media file,
> (and this is the important point) it will play a recognised copyrighted
> work. You cannot just pluck a binary number out of thin air and copyright it
> for obvious reasons, most importantly because that number is unlikely,
> probably by the most fantastic odds imaginable, to play a recognisable video
> or audio file.
This answer is not going to allow you in practice to distinguish
between bitstrings
that are legal to exchange freely and bitstrings that are not due to
copyright restrictions.
>
> > Note that micro$oft might actually sue me if I dump their latest
> > operating system on usenet in the form of a bitstring.
>
> Obviously.
>
> .
> >
> > But what is it exactly, according to you, that's unethical about p2p
> > sharing of copyrighted material?
>
> I don't think I have expressed that viewpoint.
Well, you seem to suggest artists have the right to claim intellectual
property which
conflicts with the rights of individuals to share information freely on
p2p.
When you have physical property, it's in your house so it's easy to
protect and call on the cops when somebody attempts to take it away. So
physical property rights are easily implemented and enforced.
When you have 'intellectual property' it might be distributed over the
houses of thousands or millions of people world-wide and at that point
it's no longer a straightforward task to guard that property against
unauthorized duplication. You can't just grant arists such imaginary
rights and assume that the government will have the means and resources
necessary to enforce such legislation.
>
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> That's simply not true. You have a legal right to state how you want
> >> >> your
> >> >> product to be distributed, including insisting on *not* charging for
> >> >> it.
> >> >> One can back it up with enforcement if required. Have a look at the
> >> >> GPL
> >> >> licence.
> >> >> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
> >> >
> >> > But how feasible is this in practice? Suppose I come up with a story
> >> > and share it on p2p with an accompanying notice of the terms under
> >> > which I allow distribution. What will I do when someone in China
> >> > decides to say "fuck those terms"? I don't think it's practical for me
> >> > to do anything about it (and I probably wouldn't even know about it),
> >> > especially if it's just a kid who isn't doing it for financial gain.
> >> >
> >>
> >> That's the whole point of GNU, to prevent people dishonestly making money
> >> from other people's binary creations! It gives the right to modify and
> >> distribute the work freely, with certain conditions, and forbids charging
> >> for the software itself, though handling/distribution charges can be
> >> made.
> >> If a kid in China is distributing such material without financial gain,
> >> then
> >> GNU has worked!
> >>
> >> How is it enforceable? You create a work, apply the GNU licence and
> >> distribute it. The GNU community would pick up rather quickly on someone
> >> then claiming they came up with the idea and trying to market it!
> >
> > What makes people in the GNU community morally superior to the general
> > population?
>
> Morally superior? you've lost me there. They are simply a community of
> software writers who want to contribute code, eg to Linux, for free, and try
> and ensure their work gets distributed freely without someone claiming it as
> their own or making a fat profit out of it. They're good guys, and maybe
> that makes them 'morally superior' to the likes of Bill Gates, I suppose
> it's down to how one views open source software. Some people think it's the
> work of the devil, some love it.
But I don't think people have the right to prevent others from
financially exploiting their
work either. Because it implies that people can distribute their
'creative property' while remaining in control of it and I think this
is an assumption that is gradually rendered more absurd with every
technological development.
>
> > If people share things on p2p and say 'fuck those copyrights', I think
> > they are just as likely to share things on p2p and say 'fuck that GNU
> > licence'.
> >
>
> OK, you're really not getting this. That is what GNU is for. It's raison
> d'etre is to ensure that software is distributed freely without profit. If
> someone incorporates the GNU licence agreement in their software, it usually
> means that the program can be freely distributed, including via P2P. If
> P2P'ers say 'fuck the GNU licence' then share the program on P2P, then they
> are pretty stupid as that is exactly what the software writer wanted! The
> P2P'er isn't 'fucking' anything!
He would be when he removes the gnu license from the package he
distributes and attaches his own 'license' that involves voluntary free
donations (to his personal bankaccount) to express appreciation for the
availability of the package.
>
> >> If they want to join the world of free movies and music, they only have
> >> to
> >> spend half and hour reading up on it. I wasn't born knowing how to use
> >> P2P,
> >> and neither was anyone else!
> >
> > But p2p also comes with spyware, virusses and other threats. Imagine
> > your kid downloading the latest Harry Potter and it turns out to be a
> > fake porn movie.
>
> Now we're talking about the quality of downloaded movies? Even a savvy user
> can get a bad download, and if people let their kids download freely without
> checking, they have no cause for complaint.
>
> > I do agree though that it's inevitable for people to end up using p2p
> > as an alternative for buying overpriced music, books, movies, software,
> > etc.. as soon as they have a
> > cable internet connection.
> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Ultimately though, most people prefer a nice original DVD with the
> >> packaging
> >> etc. If I like a movie after watching a download, I go and buy it! Most
> >> people won't settle for movies filmed in a cinema or jerky, corrupted
> >> rips,
> >> they want the real McCoy. There'll always be a market for original
> >> DVDs/CDs.
> >> I have access to 2Mb broadband and have downloaded hundreds of movies and
> >> tens of thousands of songs, but I still have an extensive legal
> >> collection.
> >
> > I agree. There is also a difference between watching a movie in a
> > theatre and watching it at home. Personally I don't have the money to
> > spend on a huge legal collection and I never had any regrets about
> > selling my original cd collection.
> > I think people with a large house and lots of other possessions will
> > still be motivated to buy the original stuff so they can show it off to
> > their friends.
> > A huge library somehow looks more impressive than a computer with a
> > spacious HD.
> >
>
> I guess it's nice to have originals when they kick your door in to look for
> copyright infringement as well!
Not in the Netherlands. It's legal to have all the downloads without
the originals.
If the police would come in and see all the downloads, they couldn't do
anything,
and if I did have the originals it still would be illegal to share it
on p2p.
So if I'm sharing, I run a risk (regardless of having the originals or
not). Having the downloads themselves, without the originals, is
perfectly legal.
>
>
> >
> > If I run a webserver at home, the bandwidth is exactly equal to using a
> > p2p application.
>
> What has bandwidth usage got to do with anything?
This was in response to you saying (about webservers): "Plus, they have
limited bandwidth so large scale distribution at P2P levels is not
possible."
>
> > A webserver might be more easily targeted since people tend to prefer
> > p2p applications and webservers with binary content are relatively
> > rare. But if p2p were to be taxed, perhaps many people would switch to
> > webservers and they wouldn't be so easy to target.
> >
>
> Webservers can be found and closed down, and the penalties are harsh.
> Overseas ones are tricky, but many countries are clamping down on this sort
> of thing.
Which is kind of silly, since webservers are a less convenient method
to share files
than p2p applications. But I guess it's just because on the web things
are more readily accessible, since most internet users have a
webbrowser while only a part of them also uses p2p applications.
>
> >>
> >> Email? Well it's hardly an ideal medium for distributing copyrighted
> >> content
> >> to the extent of P2P. For starters, few mailboxes would handle movies!
> >
> > You can zip and cut up a movie in 10 mb chunks (or whatever the max
> > size of an attachment allowed). A free google account already has 2 gb
> > of space. In a few years it is likely to be quite feasible to share
> > movies on your email account.
>
> Don't count on it, ISPs are unlikely to allow it. Mailboxes usually have a
> limited (small) size anyway.
ISPs are unlikely to allow it? Do you know of any ISPs that would block
sending attachments to a gmail account?
>
> >For music and books it's already
> > practical and possible. You can exchange documentation of your
> > collection by email (*), pick a 2 gb selection, dump it on gmail and
> > exchange the usernames/passwords so you can each retrieve your
> > selection.
> >
> > (*) a textfile like this: http://www.ibbu.nl/~nsprakel/music.txt
>
> Yes, but this is *very* small potatoes.
I dunno.. I think small potatoes is more like an occasional kid copying
a couple of albums on their friends mp3 player.
2 gb is already quite a stack of albums.
>
> >
> >> Even
> >> if it were to become the preferred choice for file exchange, it would be
> >> possible to offer a taxed service which permits binary attachments, and a
> >> cheaper text-only one.
> >>
> >> Chat programs? Similar limitations to email.
> >>
> >> Newsgroups? My ISP has (or at least had) binary and non-binary groups.
> >> Pretty easy solution there. My ISP already has a cap on binary NG
> >> downloading, which can be raised at a price. It would be possible to tax
> >> the
> >> binary service if necessary. How would they enforce it? Simply block
> >> attachments, limit the filesize to a few kilobytes and if possible block
> >> multipart articles.
> >
> > Ok, in that respect it would be possible to differentiate between
> > text-only internet and internet with audio/visual (binaries) content.
> > But in the future most people on broadband cable internet will use the
> > audio/visual version anyway I reckon. How will you differentiate
> > between people sending home videos and people peddling Hollywood movies
> > in that case?
> >
>
> The same way as they differentiate between such activities on P2P now. Maybe
> they will be able to create an intelligent, automated computer to do this,
> who knows.
Unlikely as far as I can see.
>
> >>
> >> > P2p sharing is not synonymous with copyright infringement, though many
> >> > people think it is.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Well that's like saying sawn-off shotguns aren't synonymous with armed
> >> robbery, but I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of the time
> >> they are. Not everyone who installs P2P apps will go on to download
> >> illegally, but let's not kid ourselves that this isn't it's main raison
> >> d'etre.
> >
> > That means you would say 'screw the minority of people who try to use
> > p2p
> > for distributing their own creative output or public domain material'
> > just because the majority of p2p users infringe copyrights.
>
> Hang on a minute, you were quite happy to screw every single internet user
> for tax to cover illegal filesharing, but find object to the idea that a
> tiny chunk of people sharing non copyrighted material on P2P will have to
> find an alternative way to distribute their stuff? Methinks you're having a
> laugh!
I'm proposing an internet tax in case a tax specifically targeted at
copyright infringement turns out to be impossible to implement, because
I think copyright infringement isn't something restricted to free file
sharing (or free p2p sharing) and future developments might influence
this issue (for instance a method becoming available to easily rip
books).
>
> > An artist who just starts out might consider p2p the ideal medium to
> > reach a massive audience and a tax on p2p might prevent this option.
>
> OTOH, tax on the internet might mean a lot of people say 'sod this, I'm not
> forking out other people's downloads'. With less subscribers, ISPs will have
> to push prices up.
Well, I agree both an internet and a p2p tax has pros and cons.
>
> .An
> > author on the other hand can spread his texts online freely and people
> > infringing copyrights by sharing books (as text) on usenet can
> > circumvent the p2p tax.
> > It seems like you're saying people who come up with original content in
> > text form don't deserve any protection of their copyright, while people
> > who come up with audiovisual content do, just because that involves
> > binaries instead of text.
> >
>
> Really? I can't see how I can have been taken to mean that at all.
Because you insist a p2p tax is the best approach towards a financial
compensation for copyright infringement. In case of an internet tax, it
would also cover people infringing copyrights of books by posting it on
usenet in text form. In case of a p2p tax, such people could infringe
copyrights in this way without ever paying tax to compensate for it.
>
> > I think copyright infringement would have to be taxed in a fair way
> > beyond the text-binary dichotomy that somewhat differentiates p2p from
> > other internet uses.
> >
>
> If someone places their work in text and unprotected on the internet but
> wants to prevent unauthorised free copying, they are asking for trouble.
No they are not, just like people selling music in shops are publishing
their music in unprotected form. If they insist on copyright protection
you might just as well say they are asking for trouble by making their
music available in unprotected form. That is to say, anyone who buys
the music can duplicate it without any problems (if we neglect DRM,
which isn't very effective anyway).
> If
> they wish to charge for viewing then the onus is on them to ensure this
> happens. For example they could make it a subscription/members only website.
Do they have to charge for viewing in order to have the benefit of
copyright on their work? If I put something I create on a website
that's publicly available, does that mean I give up on copyrights?
> There's technology which gives authors control over their work by encrypting
> it and imposing conditions on the use of the file, such as how many times it
> can be copied or read, or how long before it 'times out' and becomes
> unreadable. It is likely to become popular with Longhorn, the next Windows
> version.
But DRM tends to get hacked. But we'll have to see how effective DRM
will be in the next windows version. I reckon it will still be
possible, but perhaps a little trickier, to circumvent. If DRM would
work, it would work for any digital information, regardless whether it
represents text, music, pictures, movies, software, etc...
In that case an internet/p2p/copyright infringement tax would no longer
be necessary (or perhaps only for material that has been released in
the past).
>
> >>
> >> >The
> >> > distinction between public domain and copyrighted content differs for
> >> > various countries and the internet is an international phenomenon.
> >> > Where I live, in the Netherlands, for instance, it's legal to download
> >> > anything for personal use (movies, books, music, etc..), except
> >> > software. It's just illegal to upload copyrighted content.
> >>
> >> Effectively meaning that sharing is illegal.
> >
> > Not really.
>
> Sorry, I should have specifically said 'filesharing'.
Well, depends how you look at it really. Because when you buy an mp3
from a website, you are also allowed to share it with others. Since
that mp3 is not a copy made for personal use from someone else, but
music you actually paid for yourself.
>
> >> >
> >> > There is no sensible way to distinguish between p2p and other internet
> >> > uses as far as I can see,
> >>
> >> 'As far as you can see'. It is fairly trivial for an ISP to isolate those
> >> users who are using P2P by analysing their bandwidth usage. ISPs know
> >> what
> >> the profile of P2P usage looks like, they aren't stupid.
> >
> > But copyright infringement is not restricted to binaries.
> >
>
> We were talking about P2P and the internet.
P2p (and filesharing in general) concerns binaries. The internet and
usenet (except the binary groups) concern mostly text. Text is more
suitable to share books, binaries are suitable to share audiovisual
content as well.
I can commit copyright infringement by posting the complete text of a
copyrighted book on usenet or emailing it to someone and that would not
involve binaries.
>
> >>
> >> >just like there is no sensible way to
> >> > distinguish between copyrighted and public domain content.
> >>
> >> So what's your estimation of the proportion of copyrighted v public
> >> domain
> >> material on P2P? My guess- 100:1. I'd be surprised if public domain
> >> content
> >> makes up a sizeable share of P2P activity.
> >
> > But why is that?
>
> Because it's a free way to get expensive content! It doesn't matter why, for
> the sake of the discussion we were having, which was about how many people
> would be unfairly hit by a P2P tax. The point is that they are indeed a tiny
> minority.
At this moment perhaps. But p2p is something that came into being very
recently, so it's hard to tell how the situation will be 15 years from
now, given that p2p didn't even exist 15 years ago.
>
> >In my opinion a major reason for this is that it's
> > mostly young
> > people using the internet (especially p2p) who are more likely to be
> > interested in audiovisual forms of information and music and video are
> > so easy to rip.
> > If, in the future, a more easy way became available to rip books and
> > the average age of computer savvy users increases, we might see an
> > increase in the number of cases of copyright infringement concerning
> > text-only content, like books.
> > Also, since it's likely more and more people will be able to afford
> > cameras and other technical equipment to produce their own audiovisual
> > content, we can also expect an increase in the number of cases where
> > people share their own creations on p2p and
> > we can also expect an increase in the number of artists professionally
> > embracing p2p and public domain content in a deliberate decision to
> > move away from copyrighted material as the preferred status of their
> > artistic output.
> >
> >>
> >> >The division
> >> > between p2p and other internet uses is not equal to the distinction
> >> > between access to or sharing of copyrighted and public domain
> >> > information like you seem to suggest.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I don't get this. You propose a system where everyone who uses the
> >> internet
> >> should pay a tax even though they might just read emails and surf the
> >> web,
> >> but condemn a model which only hits P2P users, albeit affecting a tiny
> >> minority of P2P'ers who may only distribute stuff legally?
> >>
> >> The logic here escapes me, sorry. How can it be fairer to penalise
> >> 'everybody' and thus hit a sizeable chunk of innocent websurfers, rather
> >> than attempt to minimise the impact on legal users and charge only P2P
> >> users, the vast majority of which are exchanging copyrighted material?
> >
> > I'm not proposing to penalise everybody.
>
> Well, that's certainly what you said- that an internet tax was a good idea.
It might be the best possible solution when a tax specifically targeted
at copyright infringement doesn't work. I think it makes more sense
than targeting p2p.
>
> >I'm just proposing to redefine
> > the concept of 'copyrights' in a fair way and to tax only those
> > internet uses that concern copyrighted material.
>
> Well, this is a shift away from your original view.
Perhaps, but it's not prohibited to shift your position during a
debate.
Your position might be influenced by the points raised in a discussion
and you might have a different view on matters after settling the
discussion.
>
> >This is my ideal
> > scenario for a fair internet tax that specifically
> > targets copyright infringement. It should however be developed looking
> > towards the future and how things are likely to develop and shouldn't
> > focus too much on the current situation of a p2p hype. I do agree that
> > the p2p phenomenon constitutes the bulk of what most people would
> > interpret to constitute copyright infringement, but this is also
> > related to how traditional recording companies look at the issue and
> > vend their outlook on it through traditional media channels (like
> > newspapers and television).
> >
> >>
> >> Anyway, time dictates that I can't really spend as much time on this
> >> thread
> >> as I have been, especially given the time of year! I'll look out for your
> >> reply but I must let someone else take up the discussion with you now if
> >> they like.
> >
> > No problem... feel free to respond whenever you like or chime in again
> > at any point in the discussion where you feel compelled to do so.
> > The discussion seems very loosely structured anyway.
> >
>
> Well, I've spent more time than I should on this again, my family are
> wondering what I'm up to! Have a happy New Year.
:-) Happy new year to you as well (a bit late). Pretty timeconsuming
indeed to have such a lengthy discussion.
>
> Dave
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|