We have continued to follow the outrageous expansion of copyright and trademark litigation (here and here and here), particularly the recording industry which is seeking crippling penalties for downloading song. Now, the industry has succeeded in nailing Whitney Harper who was between 14-16 years old when she downloaded 37 songs. The Court of Appeals increased the penalties against her — amounting to as much as $40,000.
While the parties agreed that she would be liable for $200 a song (under the “innocent” downloading figure), the industry said it would seek $750 if she challenged them on appeal.
Harper is now about to graduate from Texas Tech with a degree in business communications and the ruling may cause her to declare bankruptcy.
After intense lobbying from the industry, Congress has refused to do anything about these draconian penalties.
For the full story, click here.
Byron,
“If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.”
Replace “idea” with “information” and you basically have my argument. Are you going to argue that Thomas Jefferson was “severely misguided” or “reducing individual freedom”?
Danny:
At some point every object made by man was a conceptual idea. From the first wheel to the Space Shuttle, it began as someones idea. If I have an idea that I can patent, copyright, etc. I can eventually make money with that idea, assuming of course I have an idea that someone else thinks is worth paying money for.
You do not yet understand the nature of productive creativity nor do you understand individual rights. If you did you would not be proposing the elimination of copyrights.
I am guessing you are between 25 and 30. I think you mean well but you are severely misguided.
Sec. 44. From all which it is evident, that though the things of Nature are given in common, yet Man (by being Master of himself, and Proprietor of his own Person, and the Actions or Labour of it) had still in himself the great Foundation of Property; and that which made up the great part of what he applyed [sic.] to the Support or Comfort of his being, when Invention and Arts had improved the conveniencies of Life, was perfectly his own, and did not belong in common to others.
John Locke
Two Treatises of Government
It takes a lot of work to get to this point, it took humanity 50,000 years to develop enough to have one of our own write the Declaration of Independence. Individual rights and property rights are not easy to understand given the example of most of human history. You are taking us backward while thinking you are doing something good for society. If the individual suffers at the benefit of society, society loses.
Byron,
If you write a computer program and release it to the world, then yes, I think that it is unreasonable to expect everyone restrain themselves in doing what they would ordinarily do (distribute the program to others, for example) merely for your financial gain (especially in light of all the problems that go along with copyright that I discuss in my article). If you don’t want people sharing your information, then don’t release it. No one is forcing you to.
Intellectual property is not property. The fact that “intellectual property” has “property” in its name is simply an unfortunate semantic coincidence (actually, probably not a coincidence, because the people that created the term profit from the position that you are taking — that is, that intellectual property is the same as physical property). The two really have very little to do with each other.
If you doubt me, try to perfectly and instantaneously replicate a physical object (say, a chair) across the world over a computer network for essentially zero cost. If you can, perhaps you should contact your local physics department — I’m sure they’d be interested in your breakthrough results.
Byron:
Yep
Mike Spindell:
Why do rail against Bush only?
Obama is worse according to those who keep tabs on intellectual property issues.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/39057.html
Further reading:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker130.html
Mike:
I want a free market and that is why I want a free market. Let these mother fers actually have to compete sans the heavy hand of government.
If I had had the office, I would have told the Pharma companies to go get a life and that a natural compound found in yeast cannot be patented. Because it was not man made. However there ought to be some sort of protection for companies that spend years searching for different natural compounds to allow them to recoup some costs.
Although who do you give the rights to? The Amazonian witch doctors who have been using the medicine for a 1,000 years or the drug company that “found” it?
Mike:
The red rice yeast example is not an example of a free market. It is yet another example of Fascism. Do you actually think I agree with shit like that? I dont. Business and government have no business being in bed together.
By the way celery also lowers blood pressure and was used as a medicine in the middle ages. It does work I tried it. My blood pressure is usually about 125-130/80. I ate about 6 stalks of celery about 2 hours before a doctors visit and it was down to about 117/80.
Mike/Danny:
so what you are saying is that if I write a computer program it is not mine? And that anyone gets to use it to make a profit?
Intellectual property is property, what do you think a patent is?
You mention cars, planes, etc. where do you think they come from? The ether? No people design them before they come into existence. They are merely thoughts on paper or 0’s and 1’s in a computer. Their existence is based on human activity.
I have read that you cannot patent genes and anyway patents are only in effect for 17 years I believe.
As I said above 95 years is probably too long but people need some amount of time for the exclusive rights to benefit from their work.
I don’t see how a government can grant you a monopoly on work you created, it is your work you are entitled to it. So what you are saying is that no one has a right to their own work and that government owns all the work that anyone does and then “lets” them use it?
This is a bad idea on a number of different levels, this would be a negation of individual rights. Free shit may sound good and I have from time to time thought about downloading free music but I don’t because I don’t own it. Respect for property rights are a necessity for a civilized society.
The next thing you will be promoting is taking land from people because it is necessary to keep people from breaking zoning laws.
Byron,
Furthermore, are you aware that Red Rice Yeast, an over the counter, non-prescription medication, had until 2007 the same ability to lower cholesterol that Lipitor, Crestor and all the other statins had? The difference was it was about one fifth the cost. At the behest of the drug companies the various makers of Red Rice Yeast were ordered by the FDA to remove the statin-like ingredient it contained. This was even though Red Rice Yeast contained this chemical prior to statins coming on the market. The drug companies “intellectual properties” were retained and the statin drugs are hugely high priced in the US.
This is free market economics, or is it robbery. What would Ayn Rand think about it. You can’t have it both ways or your opinions become muddled. That by the way why I’ve constantly haranguing you that there is no free market and that’s the way the corporate world wants it.
Byron,
When a drug company develops a cure for a given disease via genetic means and they then claim the genetics as intellectual property for 95 years, I would hate to have further research dependent on their monopoly rights. That doesn’t sound like a free market to me. Also how come the Grateful Dead are so rich, even after Jerry Garcia’s death and you can download their songs for free. Answer: They use a better business model, isn’t that what your free market is about. When government grants individuals or companies monopolies, that is not the free market. Allowing a government to pick and choose between the bestowing of monopoly powers is a quicker way towards the slavery you decry.
Byron:
“I think you need to rethink your position, mine is the correct one.”
Well, I guess that settles it, then 🙂
I think what you’re misunderstanding is that copyright, like any other government policy* — whether it be patents, highway speeding laws or alcohol prohibition — is not a right. It’s a decision that a country comes to, ideally via a careful weighing of the costs and benefits. Copyright law was given, it has changed over the years, and it surely can be taken away. The question becomes: do we, as a society, feel that we want to abolish copyright? I believe the answer to this question is yes.
* Aside from a handful of inalienable individual rights enshrined (at least in the Untited States) in the Bill of Rights. Notice that copyright, a government-granted monopoly, is not one of these.
“Elimination of copyright law is a diminution of individual freedom.”
You’ve got this exactly backwards. Copyright law enforcement _reduces_ individual freedom. Because of copyright law, you can not do the following things with, say, software: modify it, run it, study it and distribute it. Clearly these are restrictions on what you can do that are brought about via copyright.
The above are the four freedoms that Richard Stallman articulated many years ago, and his Free Software movement is the intellectual ancestor of the Free Culture movement. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Mike:
Ok, I read it. I disagree even more now than I did when I only had read about a third of it. It goes beyond even Marx, at least he [Marx] was willing to grant labor their just compensation.
It may indeed be well written but it is not well thought out, how can you condone the usurpation of an individual’s rights by saying if we don’t individual rights will be compromised? A person has a right to his work which is property which is an extension of his life.
I believe Cicero said government is for the protection of property. By not protecting property in the form of copyrights you are nullifying government’s proper function and descending into Anarchy. It is a bad idea to indulge someone’s immediate gratification at the cost of individual liberty.
Maybe the 95 year law needs to be changed back to 15 or 20, but beyond that I fundamentally disagree with his argument for the reasons stated in previous posts. There are also ways to charge that wont make everyone a law breaker. If I was an artist I would just make money in concert and on the sales of T-shirts and other paraphernalia during concerts. Business models will change but copyright protection should remain. It all goes back to the productive and creative energy of individuals and their right to benefit from their work. All other arguments for or against are smoke and mirrors.
Does an individual have a right to life and property or does he not? If he does not then we are all slaves to the great collective, society. But as I said above society is comprised of individuals and when the individual is not held in high esteem the result is Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. An elimination of copyright protection is one more step down that road.
Byron,
You surprise me. not with your views but with your resistance to a least reading the man’s article. I vouch for the fact that is thoughtful and well-written. You may well disagree with it but perhaps it might give you insight into where this side is coming from.
Danny:
“I think that after thinking considering the issue, you will see that physical property, like chairs and cars, is very different from information.”
This is where you make your fundamental error. There is no difference and for the reasons I stated above. It all comes from individual creative effort.
I think you need to rethink your position, mine is the correct one. Whenever the individual is not protected you end up with a dictatorship. Elimination of copyright law is a diminution of individual freedom.
Mike,
Thanks for the praise. I’m glad you enjoyed the article. (Feel free to forward it to other interested folks because right now the article is languishing in obscurity 🙂 )
Byron,
Like Mike says, please read my article. I address all of the points you are making. (In particular, read the section ‘Copyright infringement is not “stealing” nor “theft” nor “piracy.”‘) After you read the article, if you want, feel free to contact me. I am very open to feedback about my work.
Interesting you bring up communism in your last post. Richard Stallman remarked once that copyright enforcement is closer to communism than copyright abolition is because copyright enforcement requires perfect monitoring of all copying machines, as authoritarian communism did.
Anyways, if you are a fan of libertarianism, then perhaps you respect the opinion of John Gilmore, who I quote in my article.
I think that after thinking considering the issue, you will see that physical property, like chairs and cars, is very different from information.
Mike:
“While I know you to be a compassionate human from your writing, where we differ is that I see the problems of the world in terms of their effect on average people and you see them macrocosmically.”
I try to look at things conceptually. I am of the opinion that by dismissing copyright law we are reducing individual freedom. In the end a reduction/elimination of individual freedom will bring about a controlled Internet, it will not keep it free.
You cannot willy nilly usurp individual rights, taking a piece here and a piece there. Eventually you end up in the place you fear and you will wonder why and the answer will be – I did not think “macro-cosmically”, i.e. conceptually.
When you protect individual rights you protect society. Society is nothing more than a group of individuals, you diminish their rights at the risk of society as a whole. We saw that in Nazi Germany and Communist Russia.
Byron,
Just a bit of attempted petard hoisting. Seriously, did you read Danny’s article, he states the case far better than I can. My bottom line in this though is not about political positioning on the Left/Right continuum, or following someone’s idea of a party line. In the end I agree with Danny because the clear subtext of his message is that if this copyright trend continues the free Internet as we know it will be toast. Since I believe that a free Internet is humanity’s last best chance to reverse domination by a corporatist oligarchy, in balance I’m on the side of those who believe copyright monopoly is destructive and will in the end be destructive of any hope of a free market.
As someone being kept alive by the discoveries and ministrations of the Medical field, I’ve got a rooting interest in the prevention of a monopoly of ideas. There is already one beneficial drug that I simply can’t afford and I’ve got as good medical and pharmeceutical coverage as most anyone. It won’t kill me not to take it, but it will help me feel better. Trouble is it would cost me $456 a month and I can’t afford it even though my fixed income certainly is not impoverished.
While I know you to be a compassionate human from your writing, where we differ is that I see the problems of the world in terms of their effect on average people and you see them macrocosmically.
Mike:
only problem is I don’t believe in anarchy and I think that some government is necessary for protection against those who would initiate force against us both internally and externally.
You know how I do love the free market. 🙂
Why don’t you like the FED. Resv.? You are pretty libertarian in your social views, you are for individual rights as well.
Copyright regulation is protecting individual property and by extension the individual. It is not regulating the market. The market is made up of individuals, it is not some amorphic entity. So contrary to regulation, copyright protection is actually protecting the market. If I were a cynic I would say people who are against copyright protection are against individual rights and for totalitarianism. I would say they are totally against the founding ideals of our Republic. But since I am not a cynic I will say they have a right to their opinion and I just disagree.
“Anarchy, Mike, I tell you Anarchy.”
Byron,
Isn’t that good since anarchy is just another name for libertarianism. Get government out of our lives. Don’t control the free market through regulation. The songwriters will find a free-market way to make money. Copyright is regulation controlling the free market. That’s bad isn’t it. What’s the harm?
Mike:
Privacy certainly, but I don’t think I have a right to down-load songs for free if they are copyrighted. I don’t own them. I have harped on my children about this till I am blue in the face. The younger generation doesn’t seem to understand that those songs are someones property and that property rights are the basis of our society.
Anarchy, Mike, I tell you Anarchy. 🙂