RSS FeedsFile-sharing semantics
What's your preferred metaphor for copyright infringement: 'stealing,' 'sharing' or something else? Discuss today's Opinion Daily.
Comments will close after two weeks.
1.
Mandy, I don't blame you for looking at piracy, but in reality isn't it possible that there just aren't that many people who value your work? Because filesharing exists, is everyone able to blame it instead of realizing that maybe their popularity just isn't high enough not to have a second job?
The statistics on filesharing show that the effect for most authors/artists at the bottom are positive, while those at the top are the ones that experience less sales. Instead of discouraging sharing I think you'd be better off encouraging it, while telling people that they should contribute to you when they are able.
2. > balancing the interests of content creators against the public's This is wrong. It means *promoting the progress of science and useful arts*, as you just stated above. Interests of authors are NOT an end; we just offer incentives to them as a means to *promote progress*. There is nothing to balance. Just progress to maximise.
3. Read the article on "intellectual property" by Cory Doctorow at BoingBoing. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/feb/21/intellectual.property
4. As a singer/songwriter, it all comes down to whether I can feed my children or not, and to be honest, with the amount of piracy going on, I can't. It's not about record labels and copyright, it's about being paid a fair price for what you create.... whether it be a pizza or a song. I have some free downloads and am quite happy to share them, but for the enire album I want to be able to get some money back to pay for food, petrol, mortgage etc. That's fair isn't it?
5. Unusually skillful article, worthwhile commentary. I'm with Paul (4:03 PM PST, February 22, 2008) on taxing the 'property' annually, also with Dallas Weaver http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-weaver20feb20,0,1675278.story. My take is that copyright law is so one-sided it has public support only amongst people who'd obey any authority, no matter what.
6. File transfers are neither "stealing" not "sharing" but the content industries have effectively persuaded much of the public (and more importantly, judges and legislators) to understand most uses of P2P technologies as at least suspect and at worst, criminal. My book, "Peers, Pirates, and Persuasion: Rhetoric in the Peer-to-Peer Debates," addresses these industries’ escalating rhetorical gambits over the past decade, and the consequences of this reframing for the ‘net’s future. The book is freely downloadable in PDF form at http://www.parlorpress.com/logie.html, but those who regard downloading as theft are ethically obliged to buy a copy.
7. Corporations would call even Jesus a pirate and a thief. See the Gospel of Matthew, 14:15 and below; the Gospel of of Matthew, 15:34 and verses below; the Gospel of Mark, 6:37 and verses below; the Gospel of Luke, 9:13 and verses below; the Gospel of John, 6:5 and verses below. Jesus could not pay less attention to the fact that what he does is breaking the business of bread-bakers and fishermen. So called 'intellectual property' is obviously anti-Christian because Jesus enjoyed breadsharing and fishsharing. Jesus was very definite and exact, he taught his disciples copying and sharing instead of buying even when they suggested buying.
8. Without any copyright protection human creativity would blossom. The Copyright system as of today needs to go completely. It is not doing anyone more than corporate multinationals any good. Copyright is only needed because todays businesses are built around it. Even though the best way would be to take away the foundation - you can't. Since almost everyone built their business model around it they will start screaming murder.
9. Filesharing is not theft. It does not remove the file from its owner. Copyright is in favor of a few people and very restrictive towards "commoners". Most people do not support it. It contains to many restrictions and too little rights for normal consumers. It is old-fashioned and lacks democratic legitimation. It needs to be made much more generous towards non-profit use of protected material by plain people. The time scale for protection is too long. In patent laws the protection periods are much shorter. Adopt them to copyright. Artistic creators are no "better" people than inventors. They do not deserve better rights. Odin
10. If it's real property, then tax it annually. http://journalism.berkeley.edu/projects/biplog/archive/000431.html
Submitted by: MatthewS
2. > balancing the interests of content creators against the public's This is wrong. It means *promoting the progress of science and useful arts*, as you just stated above. Interests of authors are NOT an end; we just offer incentives to them as a means to *promote progress*. There is nothing to balance. Just progress to maximise.
Submitted by: fsfe
3. Read the article on "intellectual property" by Cory Doctorow at BoingBoing. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/feb/21/intellectual.property
Submitted by: sammy davis jr
4. As a singer/songwriter, it all comes down to whether I can feed my children or not, and to be honest, with the amount of piracy going on, I can't. It's not about record labels and copyright, it's about being paid a fair price for what you create.... whether it be a pizza or a song. I have some free downloads and am quite happy to share them, but for the enire album I want to be able to get some money back to pay for food, petrol, mortgage etc. That's fair isn't it?
Submitted by: mandyleighstorm
5. Unusually skillful article, worthwhile commentary. I'm with Paul (4:03 PM PST, February 22, 2008) on taxing the 'property' annually, also with Dallas Weaver http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-weaver20feb20,0,1675278.story. My take is that copyright law is so one-sided it has public support only amongst people who'd obey any authority, no matter what.
Submitted by: PeterB
6. File transfers are neither "stealing" not "sharing" but the content industries have effectively persuaded much of the public (and more importantly, judges and legislators) to understand most uses of P2P technologies as at least suspect and at worst, criminal. My book, "Peers, Pirates, and Persuasion: Rhetoric in the Peer-to-Peer Debates," addresses these industries’ escalating rhetorical gambits over the past decade, and the consequences of this reframing for the ‘net’s future. The book is freely downloadable in PDF form at http://www.parlorpress.com/logie.html, but those who regard downloading as theft are ethically obliged to buy a copy.
Submitted by: John Logie
7. Corporations would call even Jesus a pirate and a thief. See the Gospel of Matthew, 14:15 and below; the Gospel of of Matthew, 15:34 and verses below; the Gospel of Mark, 6:37 and verses below; the Gospel of Luke, 9:13 and verses below; the Gospel of John, 6:5 and verses below. Jesus could not pay less attention to the fact that what he does is breaking the business of bread-bakers and fishermen. So called 'intellectual property' is obviously anti-Christian because Jesus enjoyed breadsharing and fishsharing. Jesus was very definite and exact, he taught his disciples copying and sharing instead of buying even when they suggested buying.
Submitted by: Mithgol the Webmaster
8. Without any copyright protection human creativity would blossom. The Copyright system as of today needs to go completely. It is not doing anyone more than corporate multinationals any good. Copyright is only needed because todays businesses are built around it. Even though the best way would be to take away the foundation - you can't. Since almost everyone built their business model around it they will start screaming murder.
Submitted by: Patrik
9. Filesharing is not theft. It does not remove the file from its owner. Copyright is in favor of a few people and very restrictive towards "commoners". Most people do not support it. It contains to many restrictions and too little rights for normal consumers. It is old-fashioned and lacks democratic legitimation. It needs to be made much more generous towards non-profit use of protected material by plain people. The time scale for protection is too long. In patent laws the protection periods are much shorter. Adopt them to copyright. Artistic creators are no "better" people than inventors. They do not deserve better rights. Odin
Submitted by: Odin
10. If it's real property, then tax it annually. http://journalism.berkeley.edu/projects/biplog/archive/000431.html
Submitted by: Paul
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT