Regulate Internet: What Does it Mean & Why is it Important?

[Evo]

So would you disagree with fair use?

On a side note, have you ran down every single line of code your computer uses and ensured you have paid all patent licenses?

Please go back and read the rest of what I said.

 

[SixNein]

It's theft. You are taking income away from the rightful owner. You're stealing money, removing income, by any name it's theft. When an employee "fixes" the books at work and moves "numbers" to other accounts, you think it's not theft? Authorities would disagree. I know you're going by what's being claimed online, I've seen the arguments, by the same authorities that claim doctoring numbers in a ledger is theft.

It's ridiculous to say because it's not physical it's not theft, and I know old laws are written that way. When a film is made, is it wrong to charge to see it? When music is recorded is it wrong to charge to hear it? When a book is written, is it wrong to charge to read it?

How else are artists to make their money? If everything they make is stolen, then we will have no more films, no more recordings, no more stories, because people can't make livings anymore.

Intellectual property is being stolen, and in this day and age, that can be worth much more than any piece of physical property.

According to me, Ryan, and the Supreme Court, it's not theft.

Copyrights have nothing to do about the decision of artists to sell or not sell their work. Copyrights are about exclusive rights over a work. For example, a music group like the beastie boys is impossible today because they sampled a lot of their music. Today, a group like that simply couldn't exist because copyrights are very strong.

 

[SixNein]

That's incorrect, search engines like google just help you find things, they have nothing to do with accessing it.

Search engines like google build very large databases of other people's content. You can go right now and do a search for images, and you will see images pop up from all over the web.

Here are some images associated with physicsforums.com that google happily serves up.

https://www.google.com/search?q=phy...d7a6d3d50a25b6&bpcl=38625945&biw=1920&bih=946

In fact, you could find numerous examples of copyright and trademark violations just from images being posted all over the forum. For example, someone posts a picture of their kids holding a Pepsi is a violation of IP. People have to either blotch out the logo or put tape over it. A youtube video with that tv playing in the background is violating copyrights.

 

[Evo]

Search engines like google build very large databases of other people's content. You can go right now and do a search for images, and you will see images pop up from all over the web.

Here are some images associated with physicsforums.com that google happily serves up.

https://www.google.com/search?q=phy...d7a6d3d50a25b6&bpcl=38625945&biw=1920&bih=946

In fact, you could find numerous examples of copyright and trademark violations just from images being posted. For example, someone posts a picture of their kids holding a Pepsi is a violation of IP.

Yeah, that's what I said, search engines find things.

 

[Evo]

According to me, Ryan, and the Supreme Court, it's not theft.

Copyrights have nothing to do about the decision of artists to sell or not sell their work. Copyrights are about exclusive rights over a work. For example, a music group like the beastie boys is impossible today because they sampled a lot of their music. Today, a group like that simply couldn't exist because copyrights are very strong.

And I'm saying that the definition of theft will need to be changed.

Did you read through the thread before posting?

 

[SixNein]

Yeah, that's what I said, search engines find things.

Those images are stored on Google servers. If they weren't, then google would be profiting off of other people's bandwidth.

 

[Evo]

Those images are stored on Google servers. If they weren't, then google would be profiting off of other people's bandwidth.

They're a search engine, of course the search page is on google's servers, did you expect it to be somewhere else?

What does this have to do with the misunderstanding the member had?

Today something has been published on the Web if and only if the search engines like Google can read and list it

 

[SixNein]

They're a search engine, of course the search page is on google's servers, did you expect it to be somewhere else?

What does this have to do with the misunderstanding the member had?

I'm trying to figure out a way to explain to you in a convincing way why I'm not a fan-boy of copyrights, and I was trying to use Google as an example. Google is arguable committing copyright infringement. But let me drop this approach and try a more straight forward approach:

I suppose my greatest concern with intellectual property is how it allows people to control, through exclusive rights, the building blocks of knowledge. For example, mathematics can be both patented and copyrighted when it is employed on a computer (Something that concerns me GREATLY). In addition, there has been a long history of continuous extensions to the term of copyright protection and also the scope of such protection. Also, there is little consideration given to how a copyright effects the public in the long term. The only consideration being given is corporate profits.

To provide an example, suppose I created a software program. I would own the copyrights to the program for my entire life and even 50 years after my death. And this assumes that congress does not decide to extend copyrights yet again in the meantime (And congress has a long history of periodically doing exactly that). Even patents provide a 20 year protection, and software qualifies for both copyright and patent protection. In a basic nutshell, I have been granted exclusive rights over what is likely well beyond the lifetime of the actual usefulness of the product. And the public will be unable to so much as create an extension to my software without my permission. Quite frankly, we aren't talking about me making some profit for my troubles. We are talking about my great grandchildren having exclusive control over something I made long after I've turned to dust.

My opinion is that monopolies shouldn't be handed out so freely. They should be rare and limited in scope and span; otherwise, the real theft is theft of the public. (Theft is still a bad word for it)

 

[Drakkith]

I'm not seeing the problem SixNein.

 

[Astronuc]

Here is a reasonable perspective on copyright infringement.

Call it What You Will, Copyright Infringement is “Theft”
http://www.jonathanpinkesq.com/call-it-what-you-will-copyright-infringement-is-theft

Ref: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17

Note:
■CHAPTER 1—SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT (§§ 101–122)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/chapter-1
■CHAPTER 5—COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AND REMEDIES (§§ 501–513)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/chapter-5

 

[SixNein]

Here is a reasonable perspective on copyright infringement.

Call it What You Will, Copyright Infringement is “Theft”
http://www.jonathanpinkesq.com/call-it-what-you-will-copyright-infringement-is-theft

Ref: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17

Note:
■CHAPTER 1—SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT (§§ 101–122)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/chapter-1
■CHAPTER 5—COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AND REMEDIES (§§ 501–513)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/chapter-5

I disagree about the perspective in link #1 as being reasonable. Instead, the perspective is from an Attorney making a sales pitch to potential clients.

According to Professor Mark Lemley, now of the Stanford Law School, the widespread use of the term “intellectual property” is a fashion that followed the 1967 founding of the World “Intellectual Property” Organization (WIPO), and only became really common in recent years. (WIPO is formally a UN organization, but in fact represents the interests of the holders of copyrights, patents, and trademarks.) Wide use dates from around 1990. (Local image copy)

The term carries a bias that is not hard to see: it suggests thinking about copyright, patents and trademarks by analogy with property rights for physical objects. (This analogy is at odds with the legal philosophies of copyright law, of patent law, and of trademark law, but only specialists know that.) These laws are in fact not much like physical property law, but use of this term leads legislators to change them to be more so. Since that is the change desired by the companies that exercise copyright, patent and trademark powers, the bias introduced by the term “intellectual property” suits them.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml

 

[Evo]

Sixnein, what I am discussing is simply the theft of artistic products - music, films, literature, where profits due the artists are stolen from them. That's all. Something needs to be done to address this as more and more of these products are produced/made available through the internet instead of traditional physical products.

 

[TheMadMonk]

And I'm saying that the definition of theft will need to be changed.

Why, what benefit does changing the definition of theft in a jurisdiction achieve? Seems like a complete waste of time to me. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. It isn't theft in any of the legal systems in the UK yet that doesn't prevent action being taken against those who infringe upon the copyright of others. There is simply no need to change the definition of theft, at least where I live.

 

[nazarbaz]

With the current Internet Infrastructure, it's a lost cause. The business must live with it. Here in France, they charge 15 to 20 euros for a music album on average (I heard that it's a bit cheaper in the US). I don't see how an average teenager could get access to the music he likes. That's the real theft : most of it goes to the industry, not the artists.
You're not going to change the actual trend with moral or legal injunctions while the authorities lack the means to enforce them.

 

[Evo]

Why, what benefit does changing the definition of theft in a jurisdiction achieve? Seems like a complete waste of time to me. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. It isn't theft in any of the legal systems in the UK yet that doesn't prevent action being taken against those who infringe upon the copyright of others. There is simply no need to change the definition of theft, at least where I live.

The problem is that it is broken. The laws are outdated and don't address the current problems. Due to the internet, there are new types of theft and the laws need to be re-written to include them.

 

[Drakkith]

With the current Internet Infrastructure, it's a lost cause. The business must live with it. Here in France, they charge 15 to 20 euros for a music album on average (I heard that it's a bit cheaper in the US). I don't see how an average teenager could get access to the music he likes. That's the real theft : most of it goes to the industry, not the artists.

Theft? No. It takes a great many people to make any major star successful. Those people work hard and deserve a paycheck too.

As for teenagers not being able to afford the music they like, well, welcome to life.

 

[Borek]

It takes a great many people to make any major star successful. Those people work hard and deserve a paycheck too.

That's the derivative of the way this system is set up, so it doesn't mean it HAS to be this way. Sure, for these people it is nice that it works this way. But there are bands that have cheap CDs and cheap concert tickets and they still make a decent money (although for sure not comparable with the major stars). I believe by redefining the approach (law) you will change money distribution and the constellation of stars would be different, but I don't think it will kill the idea that some people want to play and others want to listen.

 

[nazarbaz]

Theft? No. It takes a great many people to make any major star successful. Those people work hard and deserve a paycheck too.

As for teenagers not being able to afford the music they like, well, welcome to life.

A new set of laws won't change anything. They tried in France with the HADOPI Law : a true failure. My ISP is still reluctant about snitching on its subscribers. Welcome to life too.

 

[Evo]

A new set of laws won't change anything. They tried in France with the HADOPI Law : a true failure. My ISP is still reluctant about snitching on its subscribers. Welcome to life too.

New laws, if properly enforced, can change things. As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, going after the people that run illegal websites would be the easiest and most likely target. If you download from them then your information has been captured on their side. Probably only people that steal unusually large amounts of the products would be individually targeted, but that's just a guess. Did you know that when you visit a website that your information is captured?

 

[Drakkith]

That's the derivative of the way this system is set up, so it doesn't mean it HAS to be this way. Sure, for these people it is nice that it works this way. But there are bands that have cheap CDs and cheap concert tickets and they still make a decent money (although for sure not comparable with the major stars). I believe by redefining the approach (law) you will change money distribution and the constellation of stars would be different, but I don't think it will kill the idea that some people want to play and others want to listen.

I don't see what the law has to do with how the music industry runs itself other than to enforce certain things like copyright issues and the like.

A new set of laws won't change anything. They tried in France with the HADOPI Law : a true failure. My ISP is still reluctant about snitching on its subscribers. Welcome to life too.

I don't think you can reasonably claim that new laws won't change anything. The internet presents a vastly different landscape than anything prior to it and requires a substantial change in how we go about enforcing laws if we want to be effective. I personally just don't understand the near absolute refusal of most people to accept ANY new regulations regarding the net. It's like people absolutely don't even understand that some activities might be wrong.

 

[TheMadMonk]

The problem is that it is broken. The laws are outdated and don't address the current problems. Due to the internet, there are new types of theft and the laws need to be re-written to include them.

What evidence do you have for things being broken? We don't struggle to prosecute people who break the law where I live despite the fact that copyright infringement isn't theft. What need is there to redefine theft? I'm really struggling to see why it needs to be redefined and you are yet to present a shred of evidence to support your position.

 

[nazarbaz]

New laws, if properly enforced, can change things. As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, going after the people that run illegal websites would be the easiest and most likely target. If you download from them then your information has been captured on their side. Probably only people that steal unusually large amounts of the products would be individually targeted, but that's just a guess. Did you know that when you visit a website that your information is captured?

For that kind of strategy to work, you'll have to standardize the laws in a vast majority of countries... Some of them will never do that just to annoy some other countries...
According to your standards, I must be a real gangster...

 

[nazarbaz]

I don't see what the law has to do with how the music industry runs itself other than to enforce certain things like copyright issues and the like.
I don't think you can reasonably claim that new laws won't change anything. The internet presents a vastly different landscape than anything prior to it and requires a substantial change in how we go about enforcing laws if we want to be effective. I personally just don't understand the near absolute refusal of most people to accept ANY new regulations regarding the net. It's like people absolutely don't even understand that some activities might be wrong.

We had experienced it and it simply failed. Downloaders adapted. I'm not against Internet regulation per se. I'm not convinced by the logic of intellectual property itself.
Borek's attitude seems right to me : the business of cultural products needs to change and to adapt.

 

[SixNein]

Sixnein, what I am discussing is simply the theft of artistic products - music, films, literature, where profits due the artists are stolen from them. That's all. Something needs to be done to address this as more and more of these products are produced/made available through the internet instead of traditional physical products.

But your confusing legislation to promote the arts with legislation to protect property. And there are many consequences that go along with such a line of thinking. For example, why wouldn't their "property" be perpetual? Why would fair use ever be considered? So let's get away from that line of thinking a moment and talk about legislation to promote the arts.

Does there need to be additional legislation for the promotion of the arts? I don't think such promotion is needed or warranted at the moment. In my opinion, the current woes of the entertainment industry are self inflicted because they refuse to change outdated business models. In fact, they have been going to some great lengths to avoid having to complete on the internet. For example, cable companies have a conflict of interest in the internet. If they released their stuff over the internet, they would eventually lose their television subscriptions. So their business model is to force people to buy both while strongly limiting the capacity of the internet. Hence why we are now seeing bandwidth usage caps being implemented. And they have consistently refused to release stuff on the internet for this very reason, and so copyright infringement is the only way to obtain their material. In addition, they are shutting out competition from the internet through such limitations. For a moment, think of how these bandwidth restrictions effect companies like netflix.

If these people were making genuine efforts to change their business models, maybe some legislation would be needed. But until they do it, I don't see any legitimate reason to step in with government. Technological progress is already being severely harmed for no other reason than to protect old industries like telephone and cable from open markets.

 

[Drakkith]

We had experienced it and it simply failed. Downloaders adapted. I'm not against Internet regulation per se. I'm not convinced by the logic of intellectual property itself.
Borek's attitude seems right to me : the business of cultural products needs to change and to adapt.

What? You aren't convinced by the logic of intellectual property? What exactly are you saying here?

 

[Evo]

What evidence do you have for things being broken? We don't struggle to prosecute people who break the law where I live despite the fact that copyright infringement isn't theft. What need is there to redefine theft? I'm really struggling to see why it needs to be redefined and you are yet to present a shred of evidence to support your position.

In the US, there is already the No Electronic Theft Act.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.2265.ENR:

Notice it says theft? I don't see the point in nitpicking over words though. It's just amazing that without the word, some people don't get the point that it is illegal and prosecutable. And we're talking about the US in this thread, unless otherwise specified.

What is the No Electronic Theft Act?
Congress enacted the No Electronic Theft (NET) Act in 1997 to facilitate prosecution of copyright violation on the Internet. The NET Act makes it a federal crime to reproduce, distribute, or share copies of electronic copyrighted works such as songs, movies, games, or software programs, even if the person copying or distributing the material acts without commercial purpose and/or receives no private financial gain. Prior to this law, people who intentionally distributed copied software over the Internet did not face criminal penalties if they did not profit from their actions. Electronic copyright infringement carries a maximum penalty of three years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

The NET Act is applicable in situations such as running a file sharing application with outgoing transfers enabled, hosting files on a web account, transferring files through IRC, and other methods of making copyrighted material available over networks.

http://kb.iu.edu/data/aliv.html

This law is very aggressive since it allows people that have no intention of profiting to be prosecuted for federal criminal charges.

Perhaps this law is sufficient.

 

[Evo]

Here is a very interesting explanation.

"Promoting Investment and Protecting Commerce Online: The ART Act, the NET Act and Illegal Streaming"

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat060111.html

 

[nazarbaz]

What? You aren't convinced by the logic of intellectual property? What exactly are you saying here?

For me, a work of art is not a product that you can sell and buy for a fee. When you've done it, it's not yours anymore. I'm not going to justify it : there's no rational foundation to it in a capitalist society where ownership is a matter of survival. The relationship that this model has set in stone between an artist and its audience is coarse though. Not less vulgar than this situation where poor people and kids have no access to culture.
Do you know this Tool song, "Hooker with a penis" ?

 

[Evo]

For me, a work of art is not a product that you can sell and buy for a fee. When you've done it, it's not yours anymore.

Well, that's just nonsense. Of course a work of art can be bought and sold. What do you mean

When you've done it, it's not yours anymore

Are you just making stuff up as you post? We don't allow nonsense posts or misinformation here.

This law ought to really upset you.

For instance, a painter may insist on proper attribution of his painting and in some instances may sue the owner of the physical painting for destroying the painting even if the owner of the painting lawfully owned it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Artists_Rights_Act

I suggest that you actually read the rules to which you agreed when you registered before posting again.

 

[Galteeth]

For me,

I could be wrong, but it seems the poster was making a statement of personal moral feeling rather then commenting on the law as it is written.

 

[nazarbaz]

I agree : it probably doesn't make sense in your thinking framework and that's basically what I said... It's not meaningless, though...

 

[Evo]

I agree : it probably doesn't make sense in your thinking framework and that's basically what I said... It's not meaningless, though...

But it is nonsense. Just becasue it's how you *feel* doesn't make it sensible. And by law, even after you sell it, it may still be yours to control.

You really should do some research before you post.

 

[Galteeth]

Did you know that when you visit a website that your information is captured?

People should be more aware of this, and getting back to the general topic of internet regulation, I think some of the concern from the citizen side has to do to how much information is being kept without many people realizing it. Of course with a little bit of care you can prevent websites from storing information about you and remain "invisible", but most people don't have a good grasp of just how large a footprint their activity leaves. I disagree though that the honus is on website owners to not collect data, after all they have a right to make a profit. There are programs out there that allow you to use the internet anonymously, and I think that once people (the ones who are paying attention anyway start to see their internet activity used against them, more and more people will shield themselves in various manners.

 

[nazarbaz]

But it is nonsense. Just becasue it's how you *feel* doesn't make it sensible. And by law, even after you sell it, it may still be yours to control.

You really should do some research before you post.

It makes a lot of sense to the artists I know...

 

[Evo]

It makes a lot of sense to the artists I know...

Then it doesn't concern the thread topic.