Posted by PTravel on 12/14/06 07:18

"J. Clarke" <Jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
news:elqi8m0opk@news4.newsguy.com...
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:52:07 -0800, PTravel wrote:
>
>> "J. Clarke" <Jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:elorp00tnq@news2.newsguy.com...
>>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:45:00 +1300, Colin B wrote:
>>
>>> We may be at the beginning of a sea-change in perceptions of
>>> intellectual
>>> property with regard to video. If enough of the public decides that
>>> they
>>> want video to be freely copiable then the legislators won't have any
>>> choice but to tell the MPAA to go pound sand and remove copyright
>>> protection from such material.
>>
>> Complete nonsense.
>
> In what way?

"The public" doesn't want video to be "freely copiable" to the extent that
anyone can upload anything they want to Youtube. Elimination of a property
interest in intellectual property would have a devasting effect -- it would
eliminate any incentive to creation and the stream of
professionally-produced content would evaporate. More than that, the United
States economy has, increasingly, become a system whose only value is its
intellectual property.

The only ones who want video to be "freely copiable" in the sense the way
that you're describing are a bunch of children and young adults who have no
conception of the relationship between intellectual property and property
interests.

>
>> First of all, the Constitution reserves exclusive
>> rights to copyright owners in Article I, Section 8.
>
> At one time the Constitution prohibited the sale and consumption of
> alcohol. If there is a consensus then the Constitution can be changed.

There isn't a consensus. Banning alcohol was a disastrous decision that was
rapidly undone.

>
>> Second of all, copyright
>> owners are businesses that pay taxes and, more importantly, pay
>> lobbyists.
>
> The same was true of brewers, vintners, and distillers and they got shut
> down anyway.

It's a very different America now then it was in the 20s. Lobbyists didn't
exist then.

>
>> Youtube copyright infringers are children and very young
>> adults who don't work, don't create content and, most likely, don't
>> vote.
>
> You've determined this how? And what happens when those "children and
> very young adults" get older?

I've determined this by looking at what's on Youtube, who is making the
arguments for "free downloading," and looking at who is getting sued. As to
what happens to the children, presumably they'll get some education as well
as some real world experience and understand that perpetual motion machines
don't exist, and if the incentive for creation is eliminated from copyright
there simply won't be anymore "tunes" to listen to.

>
>> Just because that group might like to legalize intellectual
>> property theft doesn't mean that (1) the majority of Americans would
>> approve, and (2) Congress would be inclined to amend the Constitution
>> and pass legislation that would enable IP theft.
>
> And it doesn't mean that they wouldn't, either.

See above.

>
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

[Back to original message]