Re: [DMCA_discuss] Re: Buy DVDs and games abroad - and break thelaw (fwd)
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 23:18:29 -0800 From: Anatoly Volynets [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jei [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [DMCA_discuss] Re: Buy DVDs and games abroad - and break the law (fwd) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 26 January 2002 04:02 pm, you wrote: -- Forwarded message -- Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 17:40:02 + (GMT) From: Martin Keegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Buy DVDs and games abroad - and break the law (fwd) On Sat, 26 Jan 2002, Graham Murray wrote: In effect, the UK's Copyright and Patents Act 1988 gives copyright holders more power than America's highly controversial Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), because there are no exceptions, as Martin Keegan, of the UK-based Campaign for Digital Rights points out. Is anyone campaigning for the removal (or severe curtailing) from copyright owners the right to control the use (in particular restricting where and on what equipment entertainment may be enjoyed) of authorised copies? Once a copy has been created, with the There's the UK Campaign for Digital Rights (http://uk.eurorights.org/), and other small groups, as well as, I believe, EBLIDA (librarians), who probably aren't small, but aren't focused on this particular issue. UK CDR is more about being against the European Copyright Directive and defending the status quo on copyright (see the quote from me in the Register article at the beginning of this thread), rather than having a positive programme of its own. The problem is as follows: the traditional balance of copyright is being upset by the massively reduced cost of infringement, and the efforts of rightholders to increase the protection the State gives them. The former is being used to justify the latter, but the legislative scrutiny to which the latter is being submitted is insufficient to strike a new balance in which the public interest is best served. I believe we should stop talk about traditional balance of copyright, because it is injurious illusion. There have never been such a balance, and the problem is as follows: ALL copyright related laws mix up author and copyright holder. It was not apprehended by public so far, because have not created that much tension until Internet involvement. Copyright holder in fact is the same as a publisher (in general terms), and is just a business entity, which tries to exploit author (it works even in those cases when author and publisher is the same person). Author, generally speaking, does not depend on businessman in order to create. Author is the only one,who needs protection. And the only danger he or she needs to be protected from is a publisher, which intents to still name. One of the most powerful forces, which encourage creativity is an audience. This means that ANY limitation on distribution of any idea, art work, invention, music, article, etc. causes damage to public. Thus ANY copyright related law or action, which, generally speaking, implements some limitations on ideas' distribution, definitely harms public. So called copyright balance protects ONLY certain business models. The question is, why any business model should be protected on expense of the public interest? I can understand necessity to protect market, industry, science, culture, technology, etc. development. But this does not imply protection of certain business models. It seems to be obvious: if a business model contradicts market and, general society development then such model should not be protected. But we must talk not only about protection of society. We must think how to enforce its development. And one easy answer for this question does exist: Eliminate any possible limitation on circulation of ideas, works of art, music, inventions, etc. Do you need examples, how this worked in the history of mankind? Find them yourself! Do not pass by WWW, Internet, Linux, radio, telephone, automobile, book printing, ...wheel. Do you need examples, how copyright law harmed author, slowed down industry, technology, culture development? Do not ask me. Find them! Forget about business models, which do not comply with FREE circulation of ideas. There are another models on the market and they work. One can say, if we remove all copyright limitations, the material interest of an author will be compromised. Let us think about this problem then. I can imagine some kind of special taxes for use of a new idea, special public funds to compensate author work... This must be elaborated. I personally believe that there is no place for a compromise in these matters. We must find such a mechanisms, which would serve to the best SOCIETY AND AUTHOR interest! World Wide Web grew up on ground of complete freedom of circulation of ideas. I think it happened because WWW gave in set of tools for
Re: [DMCA_discuss] Re: Buy DVDs and games abroad - and break thelaw (fwd)
On Sun, 27 Jan 2002, Jei wrote: Copyright holder in fact is the same as a publisher (in general terms), and is just a business entity, which tries to exploit author (it works even in those cases when author and publisher is the same person). Author, generally speaking, does not depend on businessman in order to create. Author is the only one,who needs protection. And the only danger he or she needs to be protected from is a publisher, which intents to still name. This talk about exploitation is purely Marxist dogma that has been refuted many times. What happens between the business man and the author is voluntary contract that benefits both. One of the most powerful forces, which encourage creativity is an audience. This means that ANY limitation on distribution of any idea, art work, invention, music, article, etc. causes damage to public. Who is this public you are talking about? Last time I checked only individual people existed. There is no hive mind called public that can think, feel, benefit or be damaged. But we must talk not only about protection of society. We must think how to enforce its development. And one easy answer for this question does exist: Eliminate any possible limitation on circulation of ideas, works of art, music, inventions, etc. I think you are on very dangerous waters here, when you claim that we must think how to enforce society's development. If I understand correctly, you are advocating government regulation that orders people to behave in certain way (in this case eliminating freedom of contract with regards to circulation of ideas, works, etc). Forget about business models, which do not comply with FREE circulation of ideas. There are another models on the market and they work. Forget about business models, which do not comply with FREE right to engage in contracts with other people. One can say, if we remove all copyright limitations, the material interest of an author will be compromised. Let us think about this problem then. I can imagine some kind of special taxes for use of a new idea, special public funds to compensate author work... This must be elaborated. Who would you think is capable of deciding on how to spend that tax money (which is stolen from innocent individuals)? Do you really think that more governmental control is good for innovation and new ideas? I personally believe that there is no place for a compromise in these matters. We must find such a mechanisms, which would serve to the best SOCIETY AND AUTHOR interest! Why don't you tell us, what is this wonderful thing you call society? And what is it's interest? I claim that I am an individual human, and so are all others. Do you really believe that we can force engineer a group of individuals and say that it is their good that we are working towards? Nobody but the person himself is up to deciding what is good for him - thus all force engineering ends up favoring some on the expense of others. I hope, it will eventually become clear for majority that the problem is not, how to protect revenues of some nearsighted corporations. The only problem is the very idea of intellectual property. This is a monster, which causes more and more troubles and will cause more and more... That is why for me all talks about possible positive side effects of THE COMPLETELY WRONG IDEA of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY sound like talks about positive side effects of murder. I agree with you that there should be no copyright laws. But I disagree with you completely, when you say that we should ban certain kinds of voluntary contracts between people. Going that way is an endless swamp that will in the end take away the freedom you claim to like so much. Mikko -- On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage
Re: [DMCA_discuss] Re: Buy DVDs and games abroad - and break thelaw (fwd)
On Sun, 27 Jan 2002, Jim Choate wrote: On Sun, 27 Jan 2002, [ISO-8859-1] Mikko Särelä wrote: This talk about exploitation is purely Marxist dogma that has been refuted many times. Where? I've certainly seen it claimed but never proven. What happens between the business man and the author is voluntary contract that benefits both. Ah, logical failure number one. IP isn't a two party system, it's a three party system. If you read my message a little bit more downwards, you would have seen that I am all for getting rid of IP laws. What I oppose is restrictions on the contracts that the business man, and the author may do as well as restrictions on what kinds of contracts the business man (be he same entity as author, or separate) may offer to customers. Besides the contract that happens between author and business man today is mutually beneficiary contract in spite of the IP law, not because of it. Of course making the mutual contract 3 party system out of 2 party system, or into n party system does not make the statement incorrect. The reason it doesn't work cleanly in case of IPO is because of government (and use of force) is involved. Mikko -- On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage
Re: [DMCA_discuss] Re: Buy DVDs and games abroad - and break thelaw (fwd)
On Sun, 27 Jan 2002, Jim Choate wrote: On Sun, 27 Jan 2002, [ISO-8859-1] Mikko Särelä wrote: If you read my message a little bit more downwards, you would have seen that I am all for getting rid of IP laws. shrug What I oppose is restrictions on the contracts that the business man, and the author may do as well as restrictions on what kinds of contracts the business man (be he same entity as author, or separate) may offer to customers. Let me say this again, the contract is between the author, business, and society at large. It *IS* a three party system. That society at large puts limits on that contract is perfectly acceptable, at least in theory. The ultimate goal of IP law is NOT to allow the author or the business to make money. It *IS* to add another technological survival strategy to our ever growing toolbox. In order to do that we must motivate people to perform in (hopefully) exceptional ways. The way we do that is through the concept of 'wealth'. Logical fallacy number one, there is no such thing as society at large. There are only individuals. Let me make this very clear; if I do something such as write a book, it is an action that affects only me and it is done by me. What I wish to do with that book (the knowledge is contains) is entirely up to me. I don't want no freaking society to come for crabs, when I create something; and they have no right to do that either. If I decide to sell what I created to somebody, that's nobodys business, but the buyers and mine. If I decide to make terrible conditions to the contract - well that is also nobodys business but the buyers and mine. I don't care what the goal of IP is - it is initiated by the government who has no right to force me to do things on gun point. Mikko -- On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage
