Six-Strike Copyright Alert system now in place (2 Viewers)

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I think one thing is abundantly clear: our technology has rapidly outpaced the law and our verbiage surrounding this area.

I'm not sure that the concepts or language in the law is outdated. Changes in technology have just made enforcement incredibly difficult and infringement increasingly attractive. It's the second point that is probably most relevant. In the analog era, there was a natural limit to how widespread copying could get. Once you got past the first analog copy, the quality of the copy degraded so quickly that you pretty much could only copy from a mastered copy. That's no longer true with digital copies. I imagine 3D printing will have similar consequences for patent law.

 

[dparker713]

I think one thing is abundantly clear: our technology has rapidly outpaced the law and our verbiage surrounding this area.

I'm not sure that the concepts or language in the law is outdated. Changes in technology have just made enforcement incredibly difficult and infringement increasingly attractive. It's the second point that is probably most relevant. In the analog era, there was a natural limit to how widespread copying could get. Once you got past the first analog copy, the quality of the copy degraded so quickly that you pretty much could only copy from a mastered copy. That's no longer true with digital copies. I imagine 3D printing will have similar consequences for patent law.

Its not so much that the law is outdated as it is that enforcement has never been sufficient to disincentivize infringement. I've feared recriminations for downloading Argo as much as I've feared recriminations for making a mix tape. Oh, and there aren't terribly many patents that could be recreated in the plastic of a 3D printer, so I doubt that will have a significant effect on patent law. Though I'd suppose people that make random plastic crap and children's toys could be put out of business.

 

[Run It Up]

Simply producing a "transformative work" that is not identical to the previous work does not insulate you from a copyright infringement claim. For one famous example, we could look to Bright Tunes Music Corp. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd., 420 F.Supp 177 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 1976). In that case, it was claimed that George Harrison's song My Sweet Lord used two short musical motifs from the Chiffons' He's So Fine. Anyone listening to the songs can hear that they are not 1 for 1 reproductions of one another. But the court found that the two motifs incorporated into Harrison's chorus represented copyright infringement.

There is a level of copying that courts will sometimes find de minimus, but that standard is difficult to quantify, and in any case, no court would find that anything that wasn't a 1 to 1 representation would meet the de minimusstandard. There are also fair use defenses available. It's complicated. But please don't ignore that DMCA take down notice just because you didn't copy an entire song or show. That would be a bad move.

Sounds legit. Not something I ever had to worry about, content I produce is original or near original. And the file sharing I do is done through secure mediums.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I think one thing is abundantly clear: our technology has rapidly outpaced the law and our verbiage surrounding this area.

I'm not sure that the concepts or language in the law is outdated. Changes in technology have just made enforcement incredibly difficult and infringement increasingly attractive. It's the second point that is probably most relevant. In the analog era, there was a natural limit to how widespread copying could get. Once you got past the first analog copy, the quality of the copy degraded so quickly that you pretty much could only copy from a mastered copy. That's no longer true with digital copies. I imagine 3D printing will have similar consequences for patent law.

Its not so much that the law is outdated as it is that enforcement has never been sufficient to disincentivize infringement. I've feared recriminations for downloading Argo as much as I've feared recriminations for making a mix tape. Oh, and there aren't terribly many patents that could be recreated in the plastic of a 3D printer, so I doubt that will have a significant effect on patent law. Though I'd suppose people that make random plastic crap and children's toys could be put out of business.

Sell your stock in Wham-O ®.

 

[dparker713]

Simply producing a "transformative work" that is not identical to the previous work does not insulate you from a copyright infringement claim. For one famous example, we could look to Bright Tunes Music Corp. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd., 420 F.Supp 177 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 1976). In that case, it was claimed that George Harrison's song My Sweet Lord used two short musical motifs from the Chiffons' He's So Fine. Anyone listening to the songs can hear that they are not 1 for 1 reproductions of one another. But the court found that the two motifs incorporated into Harrison's chorus represented copyright infringement.

There is a level of copying that courts will sometimes find de minimus, but that standard is difficult to quantify, and in any case, no court would find that anything that wasn't a 1 to 1 representation would meet the de minimusstandard. There are also fair use defenses available. It's complicated. But please don't ignore that DMCA take down notice just because you didn't copy an entire song or show. That would be a bad move.

Sounds legit. Not something I ever had to worry about, content I produce is original or near original. And the file sharing I do is done through secure mediums.

File sharing of copyrighted works isn't legal, regardless of the medium.

 

[Run It Up]

Simply producing a "transformative work" that is not identical to the previous work does not insulate you from a copyright infringement claim. For one famous example, we could look to Bright Tunes Music Corp. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd., 420 F.Supp 177 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 1976). In that case, it was claimed that George Harrison's song My Sweet Lord used two short musical motifs from the Chiffons' He's So Fine. Anyone listening to the songs can hear that they are not 1 for 1 reproductions of one another. But the court found that the two motifs incorporated into Harrison's chorus represented copyright infringement.

There is a level of copying that courts will sometimes find de minimus, but that standard is difficult to quantify, and in any case, no court would find that anything that wasn't a 1 to 1 representation would meet the de minimusstandard. There are also fair use defenses available. It's complicated. But please don't ignore that DMCA take down notice just because you didn't copy an entire song or show. That would be a bad move.

Sounds legit. Not something I ever had to worry about, content I produce is original or near original. And the file sharing I do is done through secure mediums.

File sharing of copyrighted works isn't legal, regardless of the medium.

Yes, I am aware and when I receive my C&D if and when either my vpn or my peer tracker lets the wrong peers through, I will respond in kind until I find a new vpn and peer tracker.Fundamental flaws of the system that can only be circumvented by capping usage, which I stated earlier will just lead to more competition and not actually stop anything.

 

[[icon]]

Armchair lawyers are doing some seriously entertaining armchair lawyering in here.

 

[Aerial Assault]

Armchair lawyers are doing some seriously entertaining armchair lawyering in here.

Oy. I couldn't agree more, as I, in what some might term irony, work on a 47-page copyright litigation brief in the background while being lectured on question begging and told that IP is not a good under the UCC. REALLY??

 

[Jim11]

I still can't believe people go through the hassle of hunting down and downloading pirated media

In the past year or two I think enough legal alternatives have emerged that are starting to make it kind of pointless. That's the way piracy will end, not by force.

Piracy is theft.

This thread's going 10+ pages now.

It's really no different than shoplifting. Well except shoplifters actually have the balls to do their crime in person.

It's really very different than shoplifting.

Not even a little bit. You go online and steal the movie you want. Some guy without internet goes into WalMart and steals the movie he wants. Now show me this huge difference between the two.Actually I guess there is a difference. WalMart actually already paid for the movie so you aren't stealing from the artist just WalMart. Shoplifting comes out more honorable again.

The guy who went into Walmart & stole it actually stole it. A case can be made that - the guy who downloaded it didn't steal it; he just downloaded it; the guy who uploaded it was the guy who stole it.

 

[Christo]

I still can't believe people go through the hassle of hunting down and downloading pirated media

In the past year or two I think enough legal alternatives have emerged that are starting to make it kind of pointless. That's the way piracy will end, not by force.

Piracy is theft.

This thread's going 10+ pages now.

It's really no different than shoplifting. Well except shoplifters actually have the balls to do their crime in person.

It's really very different than shoplifting.

Not even a little bit. You go online and steal the movie you want. Some guy without internet goes into WalMart and steals the movie he wants. Now show me this huge difference between the two.Actually I guess there is a difference. WalMart actually already paid for the movie so you aren't stealing from the artist just WalMart. Shoplifting comes out more honorable again.

The guy who went into Walmart & stole it actually stole it. A case can be made that - the guy who downloaded it didn't steal it; he just downloaded it; the guy who uploaded it was the guy who stole it.

There's no difference under Illinois law. Theft includes obtaining possession of stolen property if the person knows or the circumstances should reasonably lead that person to understand the property was stolen.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I still can't believe people go through the hassle of hunting down and downloading pirated media

In the past year or two I think enough legal alternatives have emerged that are starting to make it kind of pointless. That's the way piracy will end, not by force.

Piracy is theft.

This thread's going 10+ pages now.

It's really no different than shoplifting. Well except shoplifters actually have the balls to do their crime in person.

It's really very different than shoplifting.

Not even a little bit. You go online and steal the movie you want. Some guy without internet goes into WalMart and steals the movie he wants. Now show me this huge difference between the two.Actually I guess there is a difference. WalMart actually already paid for the movie so you aren't stealing from the artist just WalMart. Shoplifting comes out more honorable again.

The guy who went into Walmart & stole it actually stole it. A case can be made that - the guy who downloaded it didn't steal it; he just downloaded it; the guy who uploaded it was the guy who stole it.

chances are the guy who uploaded it had just d/l'd it, so what's teh difference between the 2 guys?edit psalthough, it's my understanding that it's more the uploading of content thn the d/l'ing that draws their wrath, which is one of the hazards of torrents.

 

[NutterButter]

I still can't believe people go through the hassle of hunting down and downloading pirated media

In the past year or two I think enough legal alternatives have emerged that are starting to make it kind of pointless. That's the way piracy will end, not by force.

Piracy is theft.

This thread's going 10+ pages now.

It's really no different than shoplifting. Well except shoplifters actually have the balls to do their crime in person.

It's really very different than shoplifting.

Not even a little bit. You go online and steal the movie you want. Some guy without internet goes into WalMart and steals the movie he wants. Now show me this huge difference between the two.Actually I guess there is a difference. WalMart actually already paid for the movie so you aren't stealing from the artist just WalMart. Shoplifting comes out more honorable again.

The guy who went into Walmart & stole it actually stole it. A case can be made that - the guy who downloaded it didn't steal it; he just downloaded it; the guy who uploaded it was the guy who stole it.

chances are the guy who uploaded it had just d/l'd it, so what's teh difference between the 2 guys?edit psalthough, it's my understanding that it's more the uploading of content thn the d/l'ing that draws their wrath, which is one of the hazards of torrents.

That's what I thought as well. Basically they have someone downloading via torrent and they see the IPs that they're getting it from and that's who they nail.

 

[Statorama]

This is why I hate the Marxists in charge. This is the kind of thing they should be all over. It's unbelievable that the knobs on the left and the knobs on the right both happen to agree on this and internet gambling.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I still can't believe people go through the hassle of hunting down and downloading pirated media

In the past year or two I think enough legal alternatives have emerged that are starting to make it kind of pointless. That's the way piracy will end, not by force.

Piracy is theft.

This thread's going 10+ pages now.

It's really no different than shoplifting. Well except shoplifters actually have the balls to do their crime in person.

It's really very different than shoplifting.

Not even a little bit. You go online and steal the movie you want. Some guy without internet goes into WalMart and steals the movie he wants. Now show me this huge difference between the two.Actually I guess there is a difference. WalMart actually already paid for the movie so you aren't stealing from the artist just WalMart. Shoplifting comes out more honorable again.

The guy who went into Walmart & stole it actually stole it. A case can be made that - the guy who downloaded it didn't steal it; he just downloaded it; the guy who uploaded it was the guy who stole it.

chances are the guy who uploaded it had just d/l'd it, so what's teh difference between the 2 guys?edit psalthough, it's my understanding that it's more the uploading of content thn the d/l'ing that draws their wrath, which is one of the hazards of torrents.

That's what I thought as well. Basically they have someone downloading via torrent and they see the IPs that they're getting it from and that's who they nail.

yeah, but that guy they're nailing is you because when you are d/l'ing a torrent you are also u/l'ing it.

 

[dparker713]

I still can't believe people go through the hassle of hunting down and downloading pirated media

In the past year or two I think enough legal alternatives have emerged that are starting to make it kind of pointless. That's the way piracy will end, not by force.

Piracy is theft.

This thread's going 10+ pages now.

It's really no different than shoplifting. Well except shoplifters actually have the balls to do their crime in person.

It's really very different than shoplifting.

Not even a little bit. You go online and steal the movie you want. Some guy without internet goes into WalMart and steals the movie he wants. Now show me this huge difference between the two.Actually I guess there is a difference. WalMart actually already paid for the movie so you aren't stealing from the artist just WalMart. Shoplifting comes out more honorable again.

The guy who went into Walmart & stole it actually stole it. A case can be made that - the guy who downloaded it didn't steal it; he just downloaded it; the guy who uploaded it was the guy who stole it.

There's no difference under Illinois law. Theft includes obtaining possession of stolen property if the person knows or the circumstances should reasonably lead that person to understand the property was stolen.

Actually, under Illinois law, the downloading is not theft, nor is it illegal. Unlawful use of recorded sounds or images requires the attempt to monetarily benefit from the download. (720 ILCS 5/16-7) (from Ch. 38, par. 16-7)

 

[dparker713]

Armchair lawyers are doing some seriously entertaining armchair lawyering in here.

Oy. I couldn't agree more, as I, in what some might term irony, work on a 47-page copyright litigation brief in the background while being lectured on question begging and told that IP is not a good under the UCC. REALLY??

You must not know many practicing lawyers if you find that ironic.

 

[Run It Up]

Whats worse in the eyes of the law?Pirating media and giving it away or pirating media and keeping it.What about buying bootlegs, or just accepting them as gifts.And why does Microsoft give me 3 licenses if I can only use them in a single location?

 

[NutterButter]

I still can't believe people go through the hassle of hunting down and downloading pirated media

In the past year or two I think enough legal alternatives have emerged that are starting to make it kind of pointless. That's the way piracy will end, not by force.

Piracy is theft.

This thread's going 10+ pages now.

It's really no different than shoplifting. Well except shoplifters actually have the balls to do their crime in person.

It's really very different than shoplifting.

Not even a little bit. You go online and steal the movie you want. Some guy without internet goes into WalMart and steals the movie he wants. Now show me this huge difference between the two.Actually I guess there is a difference. WalMart actually already paid for the movie so you aren't stealing from the artist just WalMart. Shoplifting comes out more honorable again.

The guy who went into Walmart & stole it actually stole it. A case can be made that - the guy who downloaded it didn't steal it; he just downloaded it; the guy who uploaded it was the guy who stole it.

chances are the guy who uploaded it had just d/l'd it, so what's teh difference between the 2 guys?edit psalthough, it's my understanding that it's more the uploading of content thn the d/l'ing that draws their wrath, which is one of the hazards of torrents.

That's what I thought as well. Basically they have someone downloading via torrent and they see the IPs that they're getting it from and that's who they nail.

yeah, but that guy they're nailing is you because when you are d/l'ing a torrent you are also u/l'ing it.

yeah, very possible. don't think there's a way around that.

 

[Run It Up]

yeah, very possible. don't think there's a way around that.

Hide yourself, and block watchdog peers.Both are incredibly easy, and incredibly accessible.

 

[Aerial Assault]

Armchair lawyers are doing some seriously entertaining armchair lawyering in here.

Oy. I couldn't agree more, as I, in what some might term irony, work on a 47-page copyright litigation brief in the background while being lectured on question begging and told that IP is not a good under the UCC. REALLY??

You must not know many practicing lawyers if you find that ironic.

Right, not one.

 

[Christo]

I still can't believe people go through the hassle of hunting down and downloading pirated media

In the past year or two I think enough legal alternatives have emerged that are starting to make it kind of pointless. That's the way piracy will end, not by force.

Piracy is theft.

This thread's going 10+ pages now.

It's really no different than shoplifting. Well except shoplifters actually have the balls to do their crime in person.

It's really very different than shoplifting.

Not even a little bit. You go online and steal the movie you want. Some guy without internet goes into WalMart and steals the movie he wants. Now show me this huge difference between the two.Actually I guess there is a difference. WalMart actually already paid for the movie so you aren't stealing from the artist just WalMart. Shoplifting comes out more honorable again.

The guy who went into Walmart & stole it actually stole it. A case can be made that - the guy who downloaded it didn't steal it; he just downloaded it; the guy who uploaded it was the guy who stole it.

There's no difference under Illinois law. Theft includes obtaining possession of stolen property if the person knows or the circumstances should reasonably lead that person to understand the property was stolen.

Actually, under Illinois law, the downloading is not theft, nor is it illegal. Unlawful use of recorded sounds or images requires the attempt to monetarily benefit from the download. (720 ILCS 5/16-7) (from Ch. 38, par. 16-7)

You better hope you're dealing with an old recording:

(k) With respect to sound recordings (other than accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work), this Section applies only to sound recordings that were initially recorded before February 15, 1972.

 

[NutterButter]

yeah, very possible. don't think there's a way around that.

Hide yourself, and block watchdog peers.Both are incredibly easy, and incredibly accessible.

prefer the newsgroup route but I'm not supposed to talk about it

 

[Aerial Assault]

You better hope you're dealing with an old recording:

(k) With respect to sound recordings (other than accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work), this Section applies only to sound recordings that were initially recorded before February 15, 1972.

Jesus, this is getting unreal. Can (inapposite) citations to 19th century French civil law be far behind?

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

yeah, very possible. don't think there's a way around that.

Hide yourself, and block watchdog peers.Both are incredibly easy, and incredibly accessible.

right, also you could always use other sources to direct d/l files instead of torrenting them.torrenting just happens to be maybe the highest profile and most convenient for the casual pirate.

 

[dparker713]

You better hope you're dealing with an old recording:

(k) With respect to sound recordings (other than accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work), this Section applies only to sound recordings that were initially recorded before February 15, 1972.

That is the oddest statutory interpretation I've seen.

 

[Run It Up]

yeah, very possible. don't think there's a way around that.

Hide yourself, and block watchdog peers.Both are incredibly easy, and incredibly accessible.

prefer the newsgroup route but I'm not supposed to talk about it

Usenet?

 

[Christo]

You better hope you're dealing with an old recording:

(k) With respect to sound recordings (other than accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work), this Section applies only to sound recordings that were initially recorded before February 15, 1972.

That is the oddest statutory interpretation I've seen.

No interpretation. It's the words of the statute you claim applies.

 

[Aerial Assault]

You better hope you're dealing with an old recording:

(k) With respect to sound recordings (other than accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work), this Section applies only to sound recordings that were initially recorded before February 15, 1972.

That is the oddest statutory interpretation I've seen.

(1) It's not an "interpretation," it's the exact language of the statute upon which you claimed to be relying; and(2) You may not have seen many statutes.

 

[dparker713]

You better hope you're dealing with an old recording:

(k) With respect to sound recordings (other than accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work), this Section applies only to sound recordings that were initially recorded before February 15, 1972.

That is the oddest statutory interpretation I've seen.

No interpretation. It's the words of the statute you claim applies.

So, there is a section of the code that deals with recorded sound and images. There is a carve out of that section which timelimits the applicability of the statute to sound recordings, yet somehow this is a problem for people downloading files from torrent sites? Yeah, I'd love to hear that oral argument.

 

[Christo]

You better hope you're dealing with an old recording:

(k) With respect to sound recordings (other than accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work), this Section applies only to sound recordings that were initially recorded before February 15, 1972.

That is the oddest statutory interpretation I've seen.

No interpretation. It's the words of the statute you claim applies.

So, there is a section of the code that deals with recorded sound and images. There is a carve out of that section which timelimits the applicability of the statute to sound recordings, yet somehow this is a problem for people downloading files from torrent sites? Yeah, I'd love to hear that oral argument.

The statute you cited doesn't apply. The fact that it doesn't apply doesn't preclude other statutes from applying. This is not very difficult.

 

[dparker713]

You better hope you're dealing with an old recording:

(k) With respect to sound recordings (other than accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work), this Section applies only to sound recordings that were initially recorded before February 15, 1972.

That is the oddest statutory interpretation I've seen.

(1) It's not an "interpretation," it's the exact language of the statute upon which you claimed to be relying; and(2) You may not have seen many statutes.

The code clearly has a section for theft. It has another section for unlawful use of recordings of sound and images. Any attempt to shoehorn the carved out sound recordings into the theft statute goes against both canons of interpretation and USSC rulings on criminal code interpretation.

 

[Christo]

You better hope you're dealing with an old recording:

(k) With respect to sound recordings (other than accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work), this Section applies only to sound recordings that were initially recorded before February 15, 1972.

That is the oddest statutory interpretation I've seen.

(1) It's not an "interpretation," it's the exact language of the statute upon which you claimed to be relying; and(2) You may not have seen many statutes.

The code clearly has a section for theft. It has another section for unlawful use of recordings of sound and images. Any attempt to shoehorn the carved out sound recordings into the theft statute goes against both canons of interpretation and USSC rulings on criminal code interpretation.

Do tell.

 

[Slapdash]

yeah, very possible. don't think there's a way around that.

Hide yourself, and block watchdog peers.Both are incredibly easy, and incredibly accessible.

prefer the newsgroup route but I'm not supposed to talk about it

Not immune to pressure either, but not nearly as much.

 

[Novice2]

So I can get caught stealing 5 times before something bad happens?

 

[Bonzai]

A very small percentage of artists make money on record sales. Citing one of the biggest selling artists of all time isn't exactly helping your case. Sure an artist might make a percentage of their album sales, but it goes directly to paying off their advance from their label. Most artists are still way in debt to their label after factoring in record sales. The whole apparatus is outdated and out of whack. We just need to scrap it and start over. Hopefully services like Spotify and the like can help scrape away all the garbage between artists and audiences.

The "whole apparatus" is not outdated. It's firmly in place and isn't going anywhere. Spotify doesn't change that and won't change that.The "piracy is changing the paradigm" argument that many use is a pile of hogwash. Record companies aren't going anywhere. They control everything, from the advertising to the Grammy's. Justin Bieber was a youtube sensation, but nothing compared to what happened when he signed with a record company. No one becomes a major star unless they get a record deal. So piracy isn't changing anything, it's just stealing.

Not with that attitude.

 

[Bonzai]

Art is intrinsically motivating. If people stop buying trucks, companies will stop making them. But people won't stop making music if people quit paying for it. In fact, I'd say that music is typically is worse when done solely for profit.

Yeah, whether the quality of music or e-books or whatever actually improves because of copyright protection is an empirical question. I've seen evidence that, with music, it does not. As far as I recall, two different groups came up with a way to measure the quality of popular music (or it may have been one group that came up with two different ways). The method was clever, but I've forgotten what it was. I'll try to Google it in a minute. Anyway, they looked at how the quality of music has changed over the past few decades and tried to measure the influence of piracy, if any. Their conclusion was that music was worse when copyrights were enforced better (which may have been coincidence rather than cause and effect).Hold on while I try to Google it quickly . . .

Here.

 

[NutterButter]

yeah, very possible. don't think there's a way around that.

Hide yourself, and block watchdog peers.Both are incredibly easy, and incredibly accessible.

prefer the newsgroup route but I'm not supposed to talk about it

Not immune to pressure either, but not nearly as much.

Yeah, the pressure on them is on the indexers and providers. They just need to comply with take down notices. The consumer is pretty much shielded.

 

[Aerial Assault]

You better hope you're dealing with an old recording:

(k) With respect to sound recordings (other than accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work), this Section applies only to sound recordings that were initially recorded before February 15, 1972.

That is the oddest statutory interpretation I've seen.

(1) It's not an "interpretation," it's the exact language of the statute upon which you claimed to be relying; and

(2) You may not have seen many statutes.

The code clearly has a section for theft. It has another section for unlawful use of recordings of sound and images. Any attempt to shoehorn the carved out sound recordings into the theft statute goes against both canons of interpretation and USSC rulings on criminal code interpretation.

XThe correct abbreviation is "SCOTUS." There is no such thing as the "USSC" unless Southern Cal just moved to San Diego or Tijuana and adjusted acronyms accordingly. Now, please stop with the second-year law student/jailhouse lawyer garbage.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I love it when one set of ip lawyers tells another set of ip lawyers that they don't know anything about the law.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Oh, and there aren't terribly many patents that could be recreated in the plastic of a 3D printer, so I doubt that will have a significant effect on patent law. Though I'd suppose people that make random plastic crap and children's toys could be put out of business.

Who says that three dimensional printers need to be limited to plastic, or even one material at a time? How many materials would be required to utilize a large one to crank out, for example a Bryant Boat? It might be several generations (human)before the technology can crank out just about anything, but the day that we (assuming we live long enough) are copying most physical items doesn't seem all that implausible.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think "intellectual property" is a misnomer that fogs people's thinking about this stuff. Intellectual property isn't really a type of property; it's more a type of contractual arrangement. What's being diluted isn't the copyright owner's property interest; what's being diluted is his benefit under his implied contract with the government.

[ . . . ]

But I think using words like "stealing" and "theft" detract from the argument. They're not really accurate, and inaccurate arguments are less convincing than accurate arguments.

I discourage calling copyright infringement "theft" not because I want to justify copyright infringement, but because I support reasonable copyright restrictions and I want to see the case for such restrictions solidly made — without the gaping holes of overstated metaphors.

Wait, so we're going to reconceptualize IP as some sort of breach of contract, but you resist the extension of the label of theft to copyright infringement, which is a form of property deprivation and is punishable civilly and (in certain circumstances) even criminally?

Interference (a tort) rather than breach, and not property deprivation. Otherwise, yes."Not property deprivation" is the salient point. When I download your song without paying for it, I am not depriving you of any property. I may be depriving you of income, but that income is not, and never was, your property. (If being entitled to a monetary damages award makes it your property, then pretty much every legal wrong qualifies as property deprivation; but that's language abuse.)

You're way off here. There's a reason why it's called "intellectual property" and not "intellectual right to income." And of course an expectation of compensation for one's goods or services is a property interest.

By the way, it's not like I'm out on a limb by myself here. I'm pretty much following Justice Stevens's reasoning in his Eldred v. Ashcroft dissent.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The correct abbreviation is "SCOTUS." There is no such thing as the "USSC" unless Southern Cal just moved to San Diego or Tijuana and adjusted acronyms accordingly.

SCOTUS is more common, but . . . USSC.

 

[dparker713]

Oh, and there aren't terribly many patents that could be recreated in the plastic of a 3D printer, so I doubt that will have a significant effect on patent law. Though I'd suppose people that make random plastic crap and children's toys could be put out of business.

Who says that three dimensional printers need to be limited to plastic, or even one material at a time? How many materials would be required to utilize a large one to crank out, for example a Bryant Boat? It might be several generations (human)before the technology can crank out just about anything, but the day that we (assuming we live long enough) are copying most physical items doesn't seem all that implausible.

Well, I know we'll have that in the 24th century after we figure out those darned Heisenberg Compensators.

 

[Rush Limbaugh Fan]

So basically use a VPN to encrypt your traffic. This is a whole lot of nothing.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Oh, and there aren't terribly many patents that could be recreated in the plastic of a 3D printer, so I doubt that will have a significant effect on patent law. Though I'd suppose people that make random plastic crap and children's toys could be put out of business.

Who says that three dimensional printers need to be limited to plastic, or even one material at a time? How many materials would be required to utilize a large one to crank out, for example a Bryant Boat? It might be several generations (human)before the technology can crank out just about anything, but the day that we (assuming we live long enough) are copying most physical items doesn't seem all that implausible.

Well, I know we'll have that in the 24th century after we figure out those darned Heisenberg Compensators.

1971: Yeah, it will take centuries before a 70K 8" floppy will be able to hold a song, yet alone a movie.

 

[Aerial Assault]

The correct abbreviation is "SCOTUS." There is no such thing as the "USSC" unless Southern Cal just moved to San Diego or Tijuana and adjusted acronyms accordingly.

SCOTUS is more common, but . . . USSC.

You're trying to prove something with a redirect from Wikipedia? Find me a link where the court refers to itself as the "USSC" or the "United States Supreme Court." The media may get this wrong sometimes, but the court itself doesn't, and if you brief something before a circuit court (or a district court that pays attention and reads submissions), you'd better get it right.

 

[Riversco]

This is why I hate the Marxists in charge. This is the kind of thing they should be all over. It's unbelievable that the knobs on the left and the knobs on the right both happen to agree on this and internet gambling.

You know what the internet gambling deal was about dont you? The wrong people were making money in it. So someone got the government to ban it until the right people got control of the internet gambling industry. Then they will bring it back.

 

[Aerial Assault]

I think "intellectual property" is a misnomer that fogs people's thinking about this stuff. Intellectual property isn't really a type of property; it's more a type of contractual arrangement. What's being diluted isn't the copyright owner's property interest; what's being diluted is his benefit under his implied contract with the government.

[ . . . ]

But I think using words like "stealing" and "theft" detract from the argument. They're not really accurate, and inaccurate arguments are less convincing than accurate arguments.

I discourage calling copyright infringement "theft" not because I want to justify copyright infringement, but because I support reasonable copyright restrictions and I want to see the case for such restrictions solidly made — without the gaping holes of overstated metaphors.

Wait, so we're going to reconceptualize IP as some sort of breach of contract, but you resist the extension of the label of theft to copyright infringement, which is a form of property deprivation and is punishable civilly and (in certain circumstances) even criminally?

Interference (a tort) rather than breach, and not property deprivation. Otherwise, yes."Not property deprivation" is the salient point. When I download your song without paying for it, I am not depriving you of any property. I may be depriving you of income, but that income is not, and never was, your property. (If being entitled to a monetary damages award makes it your property, then pretty much every legal wrong qualifies as property deprivation; but that's language abuse.)

You're way off here. There's a reason why it's called "intellectual property" and not "intellectual right to income." And of course an expectation of compensation for one's goods or services is a property interest.

By the way, it's not like I'm out on a limb by myself here. I'm pretty much following Justice Stevens's reasoning in his Eldred v. Ashcroft dissent.

I'm familiar with the argument. He was saying that the patent monopoly should not be extended forever (or even arguably at all) because reward to the author was secondary to the benefit to the public that is created after the expiration of the monopoly period. But during the period of protection, that intellectual property is clearly treated like a property interest, regardless of the fact that its genesis lies in what can be twisted into a contractual construct between the government and the author/inventor. My point was that during the protected period, you better believe it's a property interest that confers rights on the holder. And it's not much of a stretch to go from there to the concept of infringement as theft, since deprivation of the expectations associated with the property interest is an element common to both concepts.

 

[Novice2]

This is why I hate the Marxists in charge. This is the kind of thing they should be all over. It's unbelievable that the knobs on the left and the knobs on the right both happen to agree on this and internet gambling.

You know what the internet gambling deal was about dont you? The wrong people were making money in it. So someone got the government to ban it until the right people got control of the internet gambling industry. Then they will bring it back.

Now all you have to do is give the Nevada a half mil and you are good to go. Anyone can do that right?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Will this keep bueno from plagiarizing?