An ‘extremely obscure issue’
p2pnet news view P2P:- Recently, Crosbie Fitch and I have been debating what — at first — might seem like an extremely obscure issue, but in fact, as I see it, illustrates a simple — but potentially devastating — truth:
‘Physical’ property and ‘intellectual’ property are, fundamentally opposed to one another.
Let me see if I can explain this:
The example at issue (used by Crosbie to illustrate something he calls ‘Intellectual-property nihilism’) goes like this:
Crosbie is contracted to write a particular piece of software, and does so, setting specific conditions — how much he’ll be paid, etc — required before he’ll release it.
A burglar breaks into Crosbie’s house, and steals ‘the program’. (Note the equivocation, which we’ll get to later.)
At issue, is what punishment — if any — does the burglar get?
1. According to Crosbie’s (hypothetical) ‘IP Nihilist’, the burglar is guilty only of breaking and entering, OR at absolute worst, the theft of physical property — the USB key or Hard Drive on which the program ‘resides’.
2. Crosbie contrasts this with what he describes as ‘IP Naturalism’, and states that the burglary IN FACT constitutes ’seizure’ of something real and valuable above and beyond the physical property involved — namely, the creative effort embodied by the software code.
Now, on the surface, it looks as if Crosbie is simply extoling the virtues of creativity, and advocating that such creativity be justly rewarded — UNTIL, that is, we get further into the discussion:
3. In addition to being an ‘IP naturalist’, Crosbie is also a self-proclaimed opponent of State-granted monopoly privileges such as copyright and patent, because he — correctly — understands them to violate what would otherwise be people’s ‘natural right’ to use THEIR property as they saw fit — including, to the extent that it is possible, MAKING COPIES.
This means, for example, that it is my ‘natural right’ to digitize the albums in my collection, and give (digital) copies of those albums to anybody, as I saw fit. (This already happens with anything whch has entered the ‘Public Domain’).
Now notice something here: Crosbie — correctly — notes that, IF the albums are my ‘property’ in any meaningful sense of the term, I get to use them as I see fit: I could use them for skeet-shooting, I could play them back, or — importantly — I COULD ALSO COPY THEM, and DISTRIBUTE SUCH COPIES wherever, whenever, and TO WHOMEVER I wished.
(That is, of course, absent the State-granted monopoly privilege of Copyright, which I’ll get back to in a bit.)
Now — and this is important to understand — FORMER owners of my album collection have absolutely nothing to say about the copying I would choose to do. Thus, they have no control over what distribution channels — hand-to-hand, U.S. mail, or p2p network — I might choose — OR, what price, if any, I charge in the process.
IMPORTANTLY, this ALSO includes the “original” owner/publisher.
They ALSO have no control over any of the copies.
But now let’s go back to Crosbie’s hypothetical burglary:
According to Crosbie, the burglar has not merely seized a copy of the creative work. Rather, he has seized the creative work, in it’s totality. (Crosbie never did explicitly clarify whether — in the hypothetical example — this was the SOLE copy, or he’d been smart enough to keep backups, which is an important distinction.)
I first pointed out the fact that, assuming more than one copy of “the creative work” in question exists — IE, that he kept backups — you can’t really claim that he ‘lost’ it, because he still has it. (Important distinction between physical objects and so-called ‘intellectual property’ coming up, folks!):
If somebody steals my pencil, I no longer have it. I may have a houseful of other pencils, but I no longer have THAT particular pencil.
Keep in mind, Crosbie and I are both in agreement about the nature of copyright and patent (ESPECIALLY the increasingly malignant forms those monopolies are becoming). At issue, is whether the Burglar has stolen ‘the creative work’ itself, or simply a COPY of the creative work.
There’s really only two options here, folks.
Either the burglar has stolen ‘the creative work’, in which case Crosbie no longer ‘has’ it, even though he may have a basement full of backup-copies (a self-evident absurdity).
OR the burglar has merely absconded with a particular instance of the ‘creative work’ (in other words, a copy).
See, for all his self-proclaimed “anti-copyright” stance, Crosbie, like so many other people — wants to have it both ways.
Like those he calls ‘IP Maximalists’, he wants the privilege of ’selling’ copies, while continuing to ‘own’ them (via prohibiting certain uses, such as duplicaton.)
We see this, when he advocates for the equivalent of DMCA-type provisions which would be used to coerce everybody down-stream from the burglar to destroy any and all copies descended from the ’stolen’ one.
Some of us — rightly — are horrified by the amount of “rectonning” (nice term, Steelwolf) inevitably involved in that scenario.
Leaving aside the fact that, given how insanely easy it is to make copies of digital information — and the absolute fidelity to the original exhibited by such copies — there’s be no way either to ACTUALLY eliminate all copies floating around, OR — and this is REALLY important — even to tell which copies were descended from the ’stolen’ one.
In essence — given that both ‘legitimate’ and ’stolen’ copies — AND all members of subsequent-generation copies descended from them — would be IDENTICAL, the only way to ensure that the descendants of the ’stolen’ copy didn’t propagate, would be to require that all copies be purged.
And no, you couldn’t really afford to exempt ‘authorized’ copies, because THOSE might be copied and disseminated in an manner you’d consider ‘unacceptable’.
See the problem here?
(Ayn Rand — the chain-smoking, Russian hack writer whose theories unfortunately pollute so much of Libertarianism) once stated that she’d rather see all copies of Atlas Shrugged destroyed, rather than see her work ’seized’ by the Public Domain.)
Like Ms Rand, Crosbie wants to have it both ways.
For all his protestations about ‘natural-rights Libertarianism’ and how copyright monopolies violate one’s “natural right to copy” (and distribute), he ends up advocating the WORST AND MOST INTRUSIVE aspects of those same laws, in that he wants to be entitled — NOT merely to the one, specific copy stolen by the burglar, but to any copies ‘descended’ from it, as well.
There’s only two choices here, folks:
1. Either we take the ‘copyright maximalist’ route — reify the ‘creative work’ as some sort of ineffable Platonic ‘form’ which can be ‘owned’ seperately from any particular copy of the work, and inevitably end up infringing the property-rights of copy-owners (the current system)
2. OR, we acknowledge that the ‘creative work’ — WHATEVER it may be — ONLY ‘exists’ via it’s various copies — wherever they may be, and whatever form they may take.
This includes NOT merely ‘physical’ copies (books, LPs, cassette tapes, etc.), but also ‘copies’ zipping about willy-nilly under the guise of file ‘transfer’, the ‘copy’ of a song I overheard in the background down at the local bar, or the ‘copy’ of my favorite poem inside my own head.
Behind all the ancillary issues and rhetorical hairsplitting, this is the central issue, and this is the dividing-line:
Copyright ‘maximalists’ (such as the late Sonny Bono) reify whatever their particular ‘creative work’ happens to be, which is how they can claim to ‘own’ it, but ’sell’ particular instances (copies) of it. (The fact that this inevitably requires them to infringe the rights of ‘copy-owners’ never even crosses their mind, because of what POSSIBLE importance is a mere ‘copy’ (or it’s nominal ‘owner’) when weighed against the transcendent, ineffable grandeur that is ‘ownership’ of the ineffable Platonic ‘Whole’?)
IP ‘realists’ (such as Crosbie) straddle the fence; on one hand, they understand things like the ‘natural right’ to make copies (and the inevitable loss of ‘control’ in regard to distribution or quality of such copies that it entails) but they still want the privilege of being able to play ‘poor, creative Martyr’ by the back-door route: ‘Of COURSE you can’t have it on your blog! It’s hundred-times great grand-daddy was STOLEN along with my USB key! It’s identical to the copies I sell? Uhh…..’
It’s not “unicorn nihilism’ to recognize that unicorns are probably mythical. Nor is it ‘IP nihilism’ to recognize that — absent the ability to control copying and distribution the phrase ‘intellectual property’ is necessarily, self-evidently absurd.
Henry Emrich – p2pnet
[Emrich says he's, "just some guy," sometime musician, wannabe writer, sporadic blogger, and (hopefully) good-natured person. He and his wife live in Pennsylvania with two cats, and, "entirely too many record albums".]
extremely obscure issue – `Data Ninja should be prosecuted`, September 10, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
September 11th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Both of you fail to address the “theft” as an act of taking something private (as in secret, known only to the creator) and making it public.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
MMM, I’ve always referred to such a burglary as being unethical because it is a privacy violation. In protecting an individual’s natural right to privacy an appropriately empowered government must therefore secure that right, provide deterrents and attempt remedies in the event of violation – which includes IP theft.
That’s the principle. The remedy is unlikely to be perfect and will be a matter of what is practical.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
“A burglar breaks into Crosbieâs house, and steals âthe programâ. ”
That’s what Pit Bulls are for.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
@MMM:
As I said in a comment to the Digital Ninja post, that action is perhaps the only other punishable “crime” aside from theft of the storage device. It’s also where you have to answer the question of statutory damages, which we are currently facing in the Tenenbaum and Thomas-Rasset cases. Personally, I think these kinds of damages need to be assessed on the basis of intent. Did this person release the private data into the public for profit?
September 11th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Copyright is established in law and in philosophy. Your whole thesis falls on your statement “he â correctly â understands them to violate what would otherwise be peopleâs ânatural rightâ to use THEIR property as they saw fit â including, to the extent that it is possible, MAKING COPIES.”
It is absolutely a “natural right” to use YOUR property as YOU see fit.. but the whole point of copyright is that the copyrighted work itself is not your property. You own the media on which it is created (you can skeet shoot your cd collection or heat your house with books) – but you have acquired a permission, not a right to the copyrighted work.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
” You own the media on which it is created (you can skeet shoot your cd collection or heat your house with books) â but you have acquired a permission, not a right to the copyrighted work. ”
So then, when are the RIAA/MPAA members going to stop saying ‘ OWN YOUR COPY TODAY ‘ since we don’t actually own it ?
oh, that’s right … if they tell it like they THINK it is, no one will want to pay money to them, will they ?
First sale say I can do what I want with what I buy as long as it is for my own personal use.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
“It is absolutely a ânatural rightâ to use YOUR property as YOU see fit.. but the whole point of copyright is that the copyrighted work itself is not your property. You own the media on which it is created (you can skeet shoot your cd collection or heat your house with books) â but you have acquired a permission, not a right to the copyrighted work”
Then how do you explain the existence of the Public Domain?
Somebody else want to take this one on, or should we just refer him to Lessig’s book, and be done with it?
I’d go as far as acknowledging that copyright and patents are “established in law” (a regrettable error which, hopefully, will eventually be corrected). To claim a ‘philosophical’ justification for such ‘permissions’ is flimsy at best, as, I think, you’d already know if you were “up to speed” on the issues.
Corporate “personhood” is also “established in law”. So was ‘legal’ segregation in the Southern U.S. pre-1964.
The “Jim Crow” laws were themselves replacements for an EARLIER system “established in law” — race-based chattel slavery.
Somebody else will have to take on the task of debating/educating you, because quite frankly, I’m not going to bother.
He’s either a well-intentioned IP apologist (like I was at one point, as you’ll all remember) or an entertainment-industry propaganda shill.
Either way, I’m not taking this one on.
Cheers, Y’all!
September 11th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Jon or anybody else:
Does anybody want to create some sort of ‘primer’ for folks like Gary, so we can skip having to do the ‘but it’s the law!” argument over and over? Hell, it could even be something basic like a FAQ (”Frequently asked Questions) including links to outside sources covering stuff like the “Statute of Anne”, “Fair use”, “first sale”, Lessig, Rick Falkvinge, etc.?
That way, when confronted with questions/comments like Gary’s, somebody can just refer him to the relevant section of the “Primer” page (or off-site link).
Added bonus to this, is that there won’t be any replays of the “Sam I Am” fiasco, because trolls will have no excuse to continue trolling.
September 11th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Crosbie:
Gary’s comment should be ample evidence as to why any attempt to retain the notion of “intellectual property”, but be AGAINST it’s two primary manifestations (patent and copyright) is unworkable. We can’t even BEGIN the task or advocating “reform” (much less “repeal”) so long as the UNDERLYING MEME — that “creative work” can be “owned” separate of PARTICULAR COPIES of such ‘work’ — remains in place.
Any attempt to do so is about as useful as trying to convince somebody who believes that certain races are inherently ‘inferior’ to rethink racism — much less accept “equal protection under the law”. The racist will likely remain COMPLETELY unmoved as to the “human rights” issues at stake so long as he continues to believe the “inferior” races are not fully “human”.
Do you maybe get it NOW?
September 11th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Dredd:
You fed him, YOU get to train him!
(Have fun!!!!!)
September 11th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
“…because trolls will have no excuse to continue trolling.”
Trolls (in the truest sense of the word) never need an excuse.
September 11th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Gary, ‘natural’ means within the natural power of the individual. You have a natural right to the intellectual property within your private domain (given you can naturally protect it from theft – with pit bulls if you can control them), but once you’ve sold or given it, it belongs to the recipient. You have no natural power to control what other people do in the privacy of their own homes (whether next door or the other side of the planet), therefore you can have no natural right to suspend their liberty to make copies or derivatives of what you have given them.
That is the argument of IP with unnatural monopoly vs IP without unnatural monopoly. Remember, the monopoly was a privilege GRANTED as an INCENTIVE, it has never been recognised as a natural right. It is pretty straightforward to argue against it.
The argument that will run and run for years to come is between those who recognise IP and those who don’t, i.e. IP naturalists vs IP nihilists.
One of the best known IP nihilists is Stephan Kinsella. And unlike Henry he won’t even argue against me, that’s how strongly he refuses to recognise IP. I recently asked him why he doesn’t even recognise the existence of those who recognise IP without monopoly, but he won’t even answer that question. So, if there are any IP nihilists in need of a well versed proponent of IP nihilism, he’s your man.
September 11th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
” Dredd:
You fed him, YOU get to train him!
(Have fun!!!!!) ”
Some types of stupid are beyond repair, Henry.
I am NOT saying you were ever stupid, your mind was actually open to the possibility that
you were on the wrong side of the argument. You have a brain.
So does Crosbie, but ANY reform must come from both sides.
The AA portions of the IP positive side refuse to acknowledge ANY rights other than theirs.
They were the ones that dug the first trenches and fired the first shots.
Any one that spends any time at all poking around the supposed ‘pirate’ hangouts will usually see them say
‘ If you like this, BUY it’ .
My own personal example, which fits the ’spirit of what crosbie is saying ….
I own every single Heavy Metal magazine since it’s appearance in the US until it’s end in the ’90’s, including all
the Specials and extras. Every single one.
I love the stories, but loathe to take them from their protective folders.
I ran across a torrent of the entire collection ( of which, I stress, I OWN every one ).
It was a collectors dream come true. I have my cake, and can eat it whenever I wish.
The IP monopolists won’t accept that as a ‘Fair use’ ,yet if they come after me I guarantee they will cut and run like sissies
when I produce my fully purchased collection.
Now, think about this ….
Every user of EVERY P2P software must agree to use it legally.
Therefore I must assume, since my use was legal, that the multiple uploaders also have
a collection, otherwise where would the scans have come from.
While I assume a posture that everyone obeys the spirit of the law, the ‘aa’s assume the opposite.
EVERYONE is a dirty stinking thief.
Neither of us are 100% correct, but the ‘AA’s are totally unwilling to admit ANY middle ground exists, and
have adopted a ‘Scorched Earth’ policy to hammer this home.
How can anyone expect compromise when the ‘AA’s won’t even acknowledge the existence of real fair use ?
You’re are right with much of what you’re saying Crosbie, but no headway will ever be made as long as the ‘AA’s
continue their assault. This assault has had the effect of a massive reaction of civil disobedience which will continue
to escalate until the problem the CLAIM to have ‘loss of revenue due to downloaders becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
THEY have to be willing to compromise or no one else will.
THEY have to acknowledge the existence of Fair Use or they will be ignored.
THEY have to start allowing things to reach public domain.
THEY have to STOP BUYING LAWS THAT WILL CRIMINALIZE ALL AND NEVER BE OBEYED.
September 11th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
It is theft, but it doesn’t require IP copyright. The burglar has stollen his potential earnings, if the company decides to buy the copy for cheaper from the burglar or the company doesn’t see the code as important anymore because it has been disseminated and doesn’t buy it from the creator. So the burglar is causing damage, but the punishment should be equal to the damage caused.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
Jack:
“It is theft, but it doesnât require IP copyright. The burglar has stollen his potential earnings, if the company decides to buy the copy for cheaper from the burglar or the company doesnât see the code as important anymore because it has been disseminated and doesnât buy it from the creator. So the burglar is causing damage, but the punishment should be equal to the damage caused.”
How so?
Given Crosbie’s somewhat-peculiar take on these issues — and opposition to monopolies like copyright and patents — if the BURGLAR has cost him ‘potential’ earnings, then so has anybody who copies what THEY ‘legitimately’ purchased from him.
Read back over the debate in the other threads, and you’ll notice that I already covered how in terms of net ‘harm’ to Crosbie, absent monopoly such as copyright (IE, under his ‘natural IP’ regime) it makes absolutely NO difference whether the copying is done from a “stolen’ copy, or one that he outright sold.
(This points out one of the problems with Crosbie’s Quixotic attempt to ‘reclaim’ the term ‘intellectual property’ to mean something nobody else — on EITHER SIDE of the copyright/patent debates — thinks it means: like it or not, for the purposes of discussion and debate, terms “mean” what those USING them THINK they mean — connotations AND denotations included.
George Lakoff — a “cognitive linguist” — is really good at describing how liberals and conservatives ‘conceptual frames’ are different — and how conservatives (republicans mostly) are REALLY skilled at using ‘loaded’ terms to, basically, ‘trap’ their opponents into agreeing with what they THOUGHT was being said, rather than what the guy REALLY meant.
I don’t have time to nursemaid anybody through it — I’m tired, I have the flu, etc., so you’ll just have to do your own research on this one.
Suffice to say that Crosbie — yet again — by continuing to use the term ‘intellectual property’ to designate something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from what the pro-monopoly side of the debate has TAUGHT EVERYBODY TO THINK IT MEANS — ah, fuck it. I don’t even have the stamina to BEGIN this nonsense again.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
” TAUGHT EVERYBODY TO THINK IT MEANS â ah, fuck it. I donât even have the stamina to BEGIN this nonsense again. ”
I know what you mean.
Like I said, as long as THEY WON’T GIVE AN INCH this will never end . or end badly , for all.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Dredd:
‘Some kinds of stupid are beyond repair”
Given my fun little tussles with “Sam I Am”, agreed 100%.
What concerns me more than the doggedly-stubborn pro-monopoly ‘maximalist’ types, is the folks like I used to be — potentially open-minded, but either ignorant of the importance of the public domain/original intent behind copyright etc., or just too goddamn propagandized by the corporate media to even understand the question at all.
THAT’S why stuff like Crosbie’s “natural IP” nonsense pisses me off, because even USING the term ‘intellectual property’ inevitably and unavoidably concedes the opposition’s central point — that ‘ideas’ can be ‘owned’.
If THAT’S true, then “Sam I Am’ and everybody like him are absolutely RIGHT to dread the expiration of their monopolies, and the Public domain IS nothing but one giant mass ‘expropriation’. Same goes for ‘fair use’, ‘first sale’, and all that kind of stuff.
Creating strawmen like ‘IP nihilism’ and bloviating about how “jane doe owns the color of her socks” does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to check the spread of what THEY call IP (and I call ‘cultural cancer’ inside my head.) What it DOES do, is confuse the fuck out of ‘newbies’ like Gary and make OUR side come off like a bunch of kooks who ‘just don’t wanna pay for stuff.’ etc. etc.
So pardon me if, on occasion, I call ‘bullshit’ on it all.
The debate was fun and informative, but all that came out of it on MY side, is an even deeper suspicion of the entire NOTION of “intellectual property’ itself, and an even deeper conviction that attempting to ‘reclaim’ it to mean something ‘better’ is an incredibly bad move, which is inevitably doomed to failure.
Don’t feel bad, Crosbie, maybe you’re right: there was a lot of consternation at first, when folks started reclaiming the word ‘pirate’ (the Pirate Bay, the Pirate Party, etc. etc.) And that kinda worked — so far. (At least Rick Falkvinge isn’t doing his presentaitons in an eye-patch, with a bird on his shoulder!)
Just curious: if Rick DID do his presentations in that outfit, would he use the traditional parrot, or a Penguin (hat-tip to the Linux scene).
September 12th, 2009 at 12:07 am
Crosbie:
The reason Kinsela won’t ‘debate’ you about ‘natural IP without monopolies’ is the same reason I won’t ‘debate’ the guy down at the bus-stop about what hair-style his imaginary girlfriend should wear.
Remember Humpty Dumpty? (You’re British, so I’m reasonably sure you’ve at least heard of “Through the looking glass”?)
“Words mean whatever I want them to mean” etc. etc.
September 12th, 2009 at 12:08 am
Did I mention that I DO think 1p2u is a really good idea?
(Don’t want to look like I’m “bagging” on Crosbie, or suchlike.)
September 12th, 2009 at 12:14 am
Last, but not least:
Just for “shits and giggles”, I decided to do a Google search on the quote “Natural intellectual property”.
the results are…..interesting:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=%22Natural+intellectual+property%22&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=6d02e072335ea48a
Yet again (as with Crosbie’s other buzz-phrase ‘intellectual property nihilism’) he’s pretty much the only person actually using — or even advocating — the phrase. He seems to be doing a hell of a job, though, judging by the number of results leading RIGHT to HIS OWN comments on various blogs.
I seriously doubt the debate between ‘natural IP without monopoly’ advocates and ‘IP nihilists’ will go on for years and years, or that it’s REALLY going on now, outside of your own personal, quixotic attempts to create it.
Have fun, humpty.
September 12th, 2009 at 12:46 am
*Correction*:
There ARE a few other folks using the term, evidently:
1. Several environmentalist-type websites have stuff about how Africa is anxious to preserve it’s “natural intellectual property” (but they don’t really define what they mean.)
2. MOST tellingly, you’ll also find the phrase on an aggressively pro-monopoly blog. (Sadly — but also tellingly, the blogger self-designates as a “pro-market Libertarian”). I’ve always found it really damned ironic that “Libertarians” — supposedly so against government ‘interefering” with the market etc. — also tend to be in favor of the corporation as a business-structure AND the most belligerently ‘maximalist’ in regard to copyright and patent monopolies. Irony kicks ass.)
But leaving that aside, the phrase ‘natural intellectual property’ is part of an explanation of how “there ARE no such things as ‘natural intellectual property rights, only State-granted monopoly privileges.”
Predictably, Mr. Libertarian Blogger-dude spends the entire post attempting (unsuccessfully) to piss all over the FLOSS software scene, and/or characterizing us as “dot-communists”, or some shit like that.
(Given the writing style and how stuff is phrased, I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned out to be “Sam I Am’s” blog.)
Enough of this, y’all.
L8r
September 12th, 2009 at 7:41 am
Crosbie Fitch: “One of the best known IP nihilists is Stephan Kinsella. And unlike Henry he wonât even argue against me, thatâs how strongly he refuses to recognise IP. I recently asked him why he doesnât even recognise the existence of those who recognise IP without monopoly, but he wonât even answer that question. So, if there are any IP nihilists in need of a well versed proponent of IP nihilism, heâs your man.”
Crosbie, as I’ve mentioned repeatedly on AgainstMonopoly, I can’t even understand what you are talking about. Your position seems utterly incoherent to me. I’ve asked you many times for explanation and you ignore me. I am opposed to the state granting legal IP privilege that undercuts property rights. Either you are for this or against it. If you are for it you are an “IP nihilist” like me. IF you are not, then you support standard IP and you are (in my view) wrong. You seem to want to oppose IP the way I do but still maintain there is some kind of “natural” IP–but what you are for is unclear and, it seems to me, totally confused and incoherent.
September 12th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Hi Stephan, I’ve explained it many times at length, but your tactic seems to consist entirely of “I can’t understand”.
At least Bill Stepp (at Against Monopoly) engages in argument with me – he entertains the possibility of being able to understand me even if, like you, he never seems to get there.
It is in respect for your views (which I understand, but do not agree with) that I refer to you those who would appear to have greater sympathy with them.
September 12th, 2009 at 11:57 am
” If you label me, You negate me. ”
Stop it.
September 12th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
” (Given the writing style and how stuff is phrased, I wouldnât be surprised if it turned out to be âSam I Amâsâ blog. )”
Sam has given out a LOT of clues over the years he’s been here ( I have been here since well before he reared his
stupid head ), all of which I have studied, and pieced together, and I am very sure I know who he is, and he doesn’t
have a blog that I know of. But he is certainly not alone in his stupidity, and using ‘fear words’ like ‘Communist’ or
‘Socialist’ etc ,, is a very popular way of frightening people into support or submission all over the world.
Sam’s brand of idiocy is more common than unique.
September 12th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
“Samâs brand of idiocy is more common than unique.”
kind of like his ridiculous view on encryption being government licensed LOL
yea thats right I still remember Sam.
September 12th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
I’d fight for the right to do whatever you want to intellectual property when somebody has paid for (or received legitimately) that property. However I can’t defend the idea that this right includes distribution (copies, not reselling/gifts) to other people (complete with the right to modify).
I write software. Some of it I release under a free license as I, the creator, want to give away certain things and techniques I have learnt so that it can benefit others.
Conversly, I sometimes release software for a price, or under a license which restricts redistribution. I don’t care if somebody reverse engineers, patches or looks through the compiled code with certain tools. That is their right as they have purchased the property. But widespread distribution is MY RIGHT as the creator.
If you think that the situation should be “When somebody buys something they should be able to do whatever they want, including distributing copies” then you are incredibly naive. The solution is clearly not the current level of copyright as the content cartels would have us believing we never own it. But the answer is not the complete opposite. Content creators do need to retain some control over distribution. I support modifying for personal use. But distributing copies should not be a right earnt at purchase.
September 12th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Crosbie:
Kinesla/Crosbie:
As I’ve said before — many times, to the point that I’m simply not going to bother arguing it again:
1. I *kinda think* I understand what Crosbie’s trying to get at, and — to some degree, even agree with those parts of it that I understand.
Having said that:
Mixing issues of PRIVACY with issues of “property rights”, and then calling the resulting morass ‘natural’ intellectual property — is simply not a productive — or even valid — way to go.
If what you’re concerned about is the right to make stuff PUBLIC or keep it private, then it’s an issue of privacy, and even those who TOTALLY oppose copyright and patent monopolies agree — in a more or less general way — on the difference between “private” and “public” data. Framing the (hypothetical) burglary as a *violation of privacy* is at least coherent.
If it’s an issue of the right to decide the circumstances of first “publication” — you hadn’t yet allowed anybody access to the program (including the hypothetical software company), so nobody was legitimately ‘privy’ to it — then it’s an issue of FIRST PUBLICATION, and should be framed as such. If you’ve already admitted that, copyright, anybody ‘privy’ to ANY copy would be fully legitimate in making THEIR OWN COPIES, then you have ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to stake some kind of “ownership” claim on everybody who might potentially be “downstream” from the burglar — whether they knew that HIS copy was “stolen” or not.
Trying to somehow create a “good” version of ‘intellectual property’ — FOR WHATEVER REASON — MUST inevitably start — AND END — by conceeding the “maximalist’s” basic claim — that ideas can be “owned”.
If that’s true, then both copyright and patent become a fundamental right — the ’sacred right to property” (to use one of Sam’s pet phrases), and their expiration must INEVITABLY be regarded as a form of expropriation.
If however, ideas CANNOT be “owned”, then the view of copyright and patent as monopoly privileges of expressely limited term, AND LIMITED SCOPE (”fair use”, “First sale” etc.) makes perfect sense, and those who oppose either the monopolies themselves OR simply want to “reign them in” a bit, so as to preserve SOME semblance of cultural freedom, have justification for their views.
In principle, by the very nature of the question, one is either a “maximalist”, or a ‘nihilist’.
(More accurately, the specious notion of ‘IP nihilism” you’re trying to put over on everybody is a figment of your own imagination.)
Enough of this shit. Of course we can “agree to disagree” — you’re completely and utterly *wrong* on this particular score. The unfortunate aspect of it is, on SOME issues, being “wrong for the right reasons” is infinitely more dangerous than being “right for the wrong reasons”.
Even if, for example, a significant proportion of the p2p/copyright-reform this IS just about wanting ‘free music’, the fact remains that enough of such “scofflawry”, IRRESPECTIVE of the underlying motivation, WILL help to blunt the “maximalists”, or at least call their whole program into question. (”Right for the wrong reasons”.)
If, however, a genuine concern over issues like privacy, personal space, right of attribution, or whatever else, leads somebody to cobble together a specious “non-monopolistic” version of IP, by doing so, you’re STILL claiming that ideas can be “owned”, which begs the question of why the State SHOULDN’T enforce stuff like copyright and patents to ‘protect’ such “ownership”.
But like I said before, I’m done fucking around with this. Suffice to say that, from my point of view, you’re RIGHT more often than you’re wrong, Crosbie, but when you ARE wrong (such as now)……it’s a real hum-dinger.
(Heh. It’d be fun to watch Crosbie try to argue with “Sam” — both of them advocating for the “ownership” of ideas, but Crosbie stopping short of actually providing any mechanism to ENFORCE such “ownership”. Given the starting-point, “Sam” would win in a heartbeat.
September 12th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Reader’s write:
Oddly enough, what you’re advocating WAS TRIED. Read up on the history of copyright/patent law sometime, and you’ll probably come to the conclusion that the risk of retaining ANYTHING even resembling the notion of “intellectual property” is probably not worth the benefits.
If “rights-holders” wouldn’t have spent the last century or more gang-raping the “public domain”, by buying term-extensions/getting the requirement for registration dropped etc., then MAYBE there could be some constructive dialog about how far *privileges* like copyright and patent should extend. If they’d leave “fair use” alone, instead of whittling away at it like a fuckin’ swarm of locusts, then MAYBE the “free culture” and “copyfight” thing would never have been necessary.
If corporate lobbyists hadn’t transmuted a 7-year term into one lasting nearly a century after the “rights-holder’s” death, then we probably wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
But the fact that all of those things happened, AND that similar stuff keeps happening, has now — unavoidably — cast the whole notion of “Intellectual property” AND it’s various manifestations (copyright and patent) into SERIOUS disrepute.
Lemme put it this way:
You go to the doctor, and he tells you that you have melanoma. It’s spreading pretty rapidly, but — given the right treatment — he’s pretty sure he can fix it.
You react with shock and horror, because “My skin is a GOOD thing! Everybody needs skin! My skin could NEVER go bad!”
At this point, the current system of “intellectual property” is the cultural equivalent of a flesh-eating bacteria pandemic, and you damn well know it, and at least SOME of us give enough of a shit to actually advocate *treating the disease*, so something of our culture survives.
The guy we were talking about earlier in the thread — “Sam I Am” — used to do that, too. He “hated” the RIAA member corporations because they “extorted” from him every time he wanted to use “their” music in his shows, but for some inexplicable reason he failed to connect that to their relentless siphoning of the Public Domain by way of term-extension.
He was totally uninterested in the history OR ORIGINAL JUSTIFICATION for such monopoly privileges, and viewed their expiration as potentially “taking” something from his daughter.
Now, I’m not saying you’re that stupid, because you DO at least understand that the current system needs serious redesign.
But it’s just really annoying to see relatively-small “content providers” (indie musicians, mid-level software designers, etc.) who get sucked into defending the Status Quo either because they don’t understand the issues at stake, or they think that reform might somehow inconvenience them.
Above all else, THAT is why the corporate media megaliths have been able to get away with this bullshit for decades.
Or haven’t you been paying attention?
Sorry if this comes off as preachy, but you get where I’m coming from.
September 12th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
For the record, I’d support a single 7-year term for BOTH copyright and patent ‘protection’ — provided that all of the current exemptions (first sale, fair use, etc.) remained, AND the requirement to register — AND that the information documenting such registrations was publically available.
No renewals, No term extensions (ESPECIALLY not retroactive term extensions).
The only other condition I’d advocate, is that ANY such registration cost 5000 dollars.
This would solve a lot of problems:
1. Those who wanted the monopoly privileges would have to put forth a significant amount of time, effort, and MONEY to buy them.
2. Those who neglected to register and “buy” the monopoly privileges would ensure that a vibrant “public domain” — non-monopolized infospace — continued to flourish.
3. Having the registration info available publically would NEVER let those “licensing” such privileges forget that they WERE privileges, expressly limited BOTH in duration AND in scope — NOT some sort of “unalienable right”.
4. Organizations like http://www.sellyourrights.com (or something similar) could make it easier for “creators” to be paid to use “Free culture” licences. All you’d have to do, is announce how much you want to be paid. A good minimum amount would be 5000 — the amount you’d pay to register for copyright/patent monopolies, but you’d of course be free to be as arbitrary as you wanted to be, in regard to your price — just like people can be now, in regard to “selling” individual copies.
Everybody wins:
1. People can buy monopoly/patent ‘protection’ if they desire — but they can’t help remembering that it IS a limited privilege.
2. Creative cultural “product” is ‘incentivized” either into the public domain OR some type of more or less permissive license (Creative Commons, GPL, etc.)
3. People are essentially “Paid” to allow others to retain their freedom.
So let’s say you’re an ‘indie” musician. You think you need some kind of monopoly power (say, because you don’t believe that even a global-level ‘pass the hat’ scenario is viable). You can either shell out 5 grand to buy yourself “insurance” against ‘pirates’ for seven years – long enough to figure out whether the content you’re monopolizing is actually going to sell or not.
Or, you can SAVE the 5 grand, sell copies at whatever price you want to charge, and take your chances. (Hint: all the available data shows that p2p ‘piracy’ might actually HELP your sales.)
Or, if you REALLY need an infusion of quick cash, you can get a quick 5 grand (or more) in exchange for the even MORE limited monopoly privileges embodied in the various “Free-culture” licenses.
As to where the money to make such ‘incentive’ payments would come from, you could have various sources — 501(c.) “Cultural ecology” foundations, individual donations from concerned free-culture advocates, a portion of the statutory damages levied against those who violate the monopolies people buy (whether type 1 or 3.)
There’s a lot of options for how something like this could work, but I think you get the idea.
There are a HELL of a lot of better options than creating some malignant, idiotic myth about ‘intellectual property’, and then having it mutate out of control, to EVERYBODY’S detriment.
September 13th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
@Henry Emrich. I’m not defending the status-quo a single bit. I’m not advocating extending copyright terms indefinitely, I’m not condoning the activities of the **AAs at all. And to be fair, I didn’t mention anything about terms and lengths of copyrights in my post.
Let me be clear and to the point. Ignore anything about the RIAA, MPAA, etc for the moment. This is a simple statement so please don’t try and fill in any gaps or produce a highly convoluted solution.
I support giving the rights of modifying anything they have bought. I support the right to transfer the product around various formats. The customer has paid for those rights. Distributing copies is my right. It is external to the product itself. It is NOT a part of the product. Just because you get the ability when you have something in your posession does not aquire you this right. You must wait a period of time to gain this right.
This is what I have decided my product is worth. These are the rules I assign to this product. If you cannot agree to these terms then I wont sell you my product. I couldn’t really care less if somebody wont buy the product because of these terms.
For what it is worth, I am of the opinion that copyright terms should be cut significantly, less than 10 years is plenty of time to make money from a product.
If you think arguing for an idealogical, utopian, copyright free world is going to work then you’re going to be arguing for an eternity. You’d be better off edging the current situation in the other direction than it is going now.
September 13th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
” If you think arguing for an idealogical, utopian, copyright free world is going to work then youâre going to be arguing for an eternity. Youâd be better off edging the current situation in the other direction than it is going now. ”
Yup, this is the problem, summed up in one statement.
This is the problem that prompted the comment, ‘If you Label me you Negate me’
To support THIS IDEA …
” I support giving the rights of modifying anything they have bought. I support the right to transfer the product around various formats. The customer has paid for those rights. ”
Automagically gets one labeled as an ‘IP Nihilist’ and therefore that person supports ’stealing’ and
‘getting stuff for free’ and ’screwing the artists’ and all that lovely crap that the IP industry already
does without consumer help.
Supporting the right to copy what I PAID FOR to multiple formats for MY OWN USE gets me ‘labelled’
No one in the IP industry admits that the issue is NOT black and white, one way or the other, so these neat little
labels get thrown around, nice little propogandist sound bites.
” Distributing copies is my right. ”
Also not black and white.
My magazine story, for example.
Say you are the publisher of Heavy Metal.
Am I a ‘Criminal’ in your eyes for downloading the scans of what I own ?
I don’t have the time or the ability to do that myself, and you as the publisher don’t ?
Should I rot in a cell ?
Should the person uploading ( ridiculous in a large torrent ) go to jail, when it’s discovered that he ALSO
has a full shelf ?
Not so simple.
” This is what I have decided my product is worth. These are the rules I assign to this product. ”
If one of the ‘rules’ you assign is ‘no returns under any circumstances’ like the ‘aa’s AND the software companies
use ( at least throughout most of the US ), then ‘Get Stuffed’ is my response.
I am NOT going to buy an album unless I get a FAIR CHANCE TO EVALUATE IT.
To me that means if I buy it and it sucks ( movies, music ) or doesn’t work ( and/or it sucks ) I get to
get my CASH BACK, just like any other purchase of ANY OTHER ITEM.
Some people really love to shove tangible goods examples down our throats while ignoring the fact that If
I buy a Car or TV or pencil or pen or ANY OTHER stupid ass thing that has been used as an example, and
I don’t like it I can get my money back. This consumer right has been removed by the IP monopoly.
Without that right, before I pay my goddamn money for it I AM GOING TO DOWNLOAD IT FIRST.
If It works, and I like it, I pay for it. If the consumer doesn’t do it that way, they get screwed.
If you don’t want to give me the right to get my money back if I don’t like what I bought, then I won’t buy your
damn product. And , Guess What ? That’s what’s happening, like it or not.
Return some of the right of fair return ( FOR MY MONEY ), and that just might go a long way in restoring
customer confidence.
If you don’t like those terms, I couldn’t care less.
September 14th, 2009 at 12:07 am
Reader’s write:
“Distributing copies is *my* right”
Don’t take this the wrong way, but you’re wrong, both in principle, AND even according to the exceptions to the PRESENT system:
For example, because of the “fair use” exception, partial “copies” — which we usually think of as “quotations” or “excerpts” — are fully permissible under specific circumstances (Education, review, criticism etc.) Big, gaping hole in your *monopoly privileges.*
Or how about the “first-sale” doctrine, that allows us to purchase ‘used” books and other media WITHOUT having to pay any previous owner who might have owned it before (EVEN the original author, or publisher?)
Or how about the entire “public domain” itself? Copyright and patent — euphemistically called “intellectual property” — are privileges granted by the State, for a specific purpose, and — this is very important — INTENDED TO EVENTUALLY EXPIRE.
One something has “lapsed” into the public domain (damn, but I hate that phrasing — makes it sound like a ‘loss’), then NOBODY has exclusive “right” to distribution of copies.
What the present system does — and this is very important to remember — is grant you the PRIVILEGE of preventing/punishing OTHERS for distributing copies. You ALWAYS have the “right” to distribute copies — even after something enters the public domain.
“IF you’re arguing for some utopian, copyright-free world…..”
Nonsense. The monopoly privileges we’re trained to call ‘intellectual property’ were only invented a few centuries ago, and all ultimately derive from the “Statute Of Anne”. It’s extremely sad that people have been SO THOROUGHLY propagandized that they believe things like copyright and patent are some sort of immutable ‘right’ that they ‘deserve’ — and don’t give a goddamn about the Public domain.
Of COURSE it’s going to be a gradual process of advocating for shorter terms/more exceptions etc. But the only way anybody’s going to even be OPEN to shortening copyright terms, is if they realize that it IS a privilege, and must NOT be allowed to last “forever and a day”.
And *THAT* is my whole gripe with Crosbie and his inane notion of ‘non-monopolistic natural IP” or whatever it is.
Sorry, but “Intellectual property” – monopoly = “Genocide” – killing.
Monopoly is EXACTLY what “IP” is all about, and far to many people have been trained for FAR too long, to think that they ‘deserve’ such monopoly privileges in perpetuity.
You’re on the right track with the shorter terms and suchlike, but you have to realize that no reforms of ANY KIND stand a chance, until people wake up to the fact that copyright, patent, and the whole “permission culture” that they represent, ARE privileges — EXPLICITLY limited in duration AND SCOPE, and intended to expire in a timely fashion.
Most of this — and previous — comments is directed at Crosbie, not at you.
Sorry if you misunderstood.
September 14th, 2009 at 12:15 am
Again, I’d offer the above discussion between “Readers write”, Dredd and myself as yet MORE evidence that “Intellectual property” is merely a euphemism created by copyright/patent advocates (like the RIAA etc.) to obscure the fact that monopoly privileges ARE privileges. So long as people continue to believe ideas can be ‘owned’ — rather than merely monopolized for a limited time under VERY strictly limited conditions — many of them are going to regard the expiration of copyright/patent monopolies as some form of unjust ’seisure’ of “their” stuff.
And the RIAA are just gonna keep buying themselves longer and longer terms, while Crosbie keeps creating weird strawmen like “IP nihilism” and “natural IP” which add NOTHING WHATSOEVER to the debate on either side.
I guess I’m going to have to take the initiative and create the goddamn “primer” thing myself.
September 14th, 2009 at 10:04 am
” I guess Iâm going to have to take the initiative and create the goddamn âprimerâ thing myself. ”
That would be nice.
I’m a lousy writer ( tend to go off in weird directions, hard to follow, strange use of language ),
and i’ve been saying the same stuff for so long ( before the creation of p2pnet ) that I find
my self tending towards the same kind of angry contempt that I’ve always hated in the
‘other side’ , thus losing rationality and credibility. Maybe you could do it without popping a
vein.
I doubt I could do it without sounding like Sam or Surfer.
September 14th, 2009 at 10:16 am
*sigh*
A perfect example of potential misunderstanding.
” I doubt I could do it without sounding like Sam or Surfer. ”
To clarify …..
Sam = asshole
Surfer = too technical.
Hopefully in before ‘SOMEONE’ breaks out the baseball bat.
September 14th, 2009 at 10:59 am
” Crosbie keeps creating weird strawmen like âIP nihilismâ and ânatural IPâ which add NOTHING WHATSOEVER to the debate on either side. ”
Not entirely true.
Terms like that attempt to wrap up and oversimplify a very complex issue, and serve to obfuscate key points in that issue.
This benefits the Monopoly side of the coin greatly.
Nothing aids tyranny like confusion, except maybe fear.
September 16th, 2009 at 11:52 am
“Ayn Rand ⦠once stated that sheâd rather see all copies of Atlas Shrugged destroyed, rather than see her work âseizedâ by the Public Domain.”
Do you have a reference for this?
September 16th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Mwickens:
It’s in the book “Ayn Rand Answers” edited by — I think — Robert Mayhew.
http://www.amazon.com/Ayn-Rand-Answers-Best-Her/dp/0451216652
Can’t give you the page number offhand, but I gotta ask: did you REALLY think I’d make something like that up?