The RIAA Strikes Again

[Faiien]

Well most of us have heard who the RIAA is. And for those of you that havnt the RIAA stands for Recording Industry Association of America. They basically protect music artists from pirates who download music illegally. Lately they've been targeting college campuses and limewire/kazaa users. They have won alot of cases against these pirates and you always never hear about it when they lose because they always deal with that under the table, with an undisclosed amount. But anyways back on topic, now they are trying to sue people, who have legally purchased their music, for burning their CDs onto their computer. IMO, this is simply ludicrous, what next? suing people for letting others listen to a purchased CD? Well anyways, heres the article if anyones interested in the topic. Enjoy :)

http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/29/riaa-suing-citizen-for-copying-legally-purchased-cds-to-pc/

[hammocksleeper]

Yeah it's pretty fucked up - you probably wouldn't have a difficult time convincing a jury that ripping your own CD's to a computer falls under "fair use," but the way these RIAA campaigns work is to force you to pay a settlement fee, since you will never be able to afford to actually go to court and win.

What we need is is a class-action extortion case brought against the RIAA. ;)

[Faiien]

exactly, these big companies are always overpowering the little guy with their armies of suits. most people just kinda gives up as soon as they see the notice from the RIAA cause

A. If the go to to court they risk paying a larger amount then what they owe
B. As stated above, they cant afford to battle against the RIAA

[Modred]

Please don't call those who download music from the internet "pirates." It's nothing but a smear term imposed by RIAA to provide a negative connotation on file sharing. In follow up to the article you linked, it turns out that he's sued for illegal downloading (http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/30/riaa-not-suing-over-cd-ripping-still-kinda-being-jerks-about-it/), not for ripping his CDs. However, the RIAA maintains their long-held position that copying your CDs onto a computer is illegal.

In short, the RIAA feels that restricting you from hearing music in anything except one approved form will help the artists. You are a criminal. You have no rights. Real pirates, the kind that stole ships, murdered, raped, and pillaged, could be hanged without trial in many parts of the world. This is how the RIAA views you for wanting choice.

[Skullflower]

Fuck the RIAA. Downloading music doesnt hurt the artists so much as it hurts the record labels. Support bands by buying shit the record labels dont control.

[Faiien]

Please don't call those who download music from the internet "pirates." It's nothing but a smear term imposed by RIAA to provide a negative connotation on file sharing. In follow up to the article you linked, it turns out that he's sued for illegal downloading, not for ripping his CDs. However, the RIAA maintains their long-held position that copying your CDs onto a computer is illegal.

In short, the RIAA feels that restricting you from hearing music in anything except one approved form will help the artists. You are a criminal. You have no rights. Real pirates, the kind that stole ships, murdered, raped, and pillaged, could be hanged without trial in many parts of the world. This is how the RIAA views you for wanting choice.

oh iam sorry, next time ill be sure to call the, "pirates," people that download stuff there not allowed to off the internet, if it makes you happy ;). If the word pirate offends or has such a negative connotation to you then the RIAA has probably convinced you of such. I did not use the word pirate in the contexts of someone that stole, raped, and pillaged. I used it to represent those that had downloaded items on their computers illegally. Iam sorry but thats what their called, so unless your gonna give me another word to use, iam gonna continue to call them pirates.

Fuck the RIAA. Downloading music doesnt hurt the artists so much as it hurts the record labels. Support bands by buying shit the record labels dont control.ya but thats what the RIAA would like you to believe, and they have the money to to do it too.

[Frattimonde]

There will be chaos..

[Modred]

I did not use the word pirate in the contexts of someone that stole, raped, and pillaged. I used it to represent those that had downloaded items on their computers illegally. Iam sorry but thats what their called, so unless your gonna give me another word to use, iam gonna continue to call them pirates.

Done (http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy). Call it "unauthorized copying" or "sharing." These are both more descriptive to the actual charge and don't imply that the offenders are monstrous villains that must be stopped at any cost.

When most people hear piracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy), they don't think "oh, someone downloaded a song from the internet." They usually think something along the lines of ships, sword fights, and treachery. You are promoting a misnomer.

[Grizzly]

When most people hear piracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy), they don't think "oh, someone downloaded a song from the internet." They usually think something along the lines of ships, sword fights, and treachery. You are promoting a misnomer.

That's about wrong. The term "piracy" has been applied to illegally copying software from the moment the first person figured out that illegal copying might be a good idea for making money.

Just because it was first applied to naval thievery doesn't mean it can't be applied to other forms of stealing. And that's just what it is. Copying or downloading something without the author's or copyright owner's permission (other than for "fair use") is stealing. Put whatever whitewash phrase or innocuous string of words together in order to make you feel better, but it is still stealing.

In response to the OP, I would have to agree. If someone buys a CD, I can see no reason why anyone would object to them loading up the songs to an iPod, MP3 player or computer. The CD was bought so that the owner could enjoy the artist's and anything that unreasonably interferes with the purchaser's enjoyment is bad for the artist, the record label and the industry in general.

I can see why they are so gung-ho about about getting at the folks who use illegal copies to make a buck. Music and entertainment is a multi-billion dollar industry and, like any other industry, they are entiltled to protect their product. They go overboard alot from what I've seen though. The Disney franchaise actually taking (or threating to, at least) people to court because they put a picture of [disney character here] on thier personal (not business) website. Friggin ridiculous in my opinion.

[West]

That's stupid. Aren't musicians playing music because they like to?
lol they're all in for the money.
Oh and why is calling someone a pirate because they Illegaly download stuff from
the Internet an insult? the words kind of connect, Piracy because it is like
people stealing the stuff, just like pirates commit piracy by pillaging villages and stealing
and such. there is also a place where you can do that called "The Pirate Bay"

Why did we swerve off topic again?
oh yeah, that's stupid that RIAA is suing people for illegally downloading music.
isn't it enough to show that people like their music so much they would rather get
it illegally? lol they don't give a rats-ass about us they just want their money (x_x)
greedy bastards.

I can see it in the future, they will make us pay money to get a special format of their songs to go into our mp3 players and force
us to stop uploading music into our computers from CD's

[SilverCrusader]

Fascist bastards.
This is equivalent to buying a recipe book, and copying down a single recipe. So essentially copying down anything from a book is, according to them, illegal.

[Faiien]

That's stupid. Aren't musicians playing music because they like to?
lol they're all in for the money.
Oh and why is calling someone a pirate because they Illegaly download stuff from
the Internet an insult? the words kind of connect, Piracy because it is like
people stealing the stuff, just like pirates commit piracy by pillaging villages and stealing
and such. there is also a place where you can do that called "The Pirate Bay"

Why did we swerve off topic again?
oh yeah, that's stupid that RIAA is suing people for illegally downloading music.
isn't it enough to show that people like their music so much they would rather get
it illegally? lol they don't give a rats-ass about us they just want their money (x_x)
greedy bastards.

Well its mainly the record companies that are suing, not the artists themselves, but artists need recording companies to advertise and promote their music.

I can see it in the future, they will make us pay money to get a special format of their songs to go into our mp3 players and force
us to stop uploading music into our computers from CD'sits like a bigger version of Itunes DRM format :P

[Modred]

That's about wrong. The term "piracy" has been applied to illegally copying software from the moment the first person figured out that illegal copying might be a good idea for making money.

I never claimed that this was not a valid definition. Let me clarify: except for those who think of copyright issues often, I am reasonably certain that very few people think of "piracy" as "copying things" when they first hear the term. That may be the second or third idea that they imagine, but I doubt it's the first.

In addition, consider that the original copyright "pirates" were illegal book publishers, not consumers. These publishers were not simply copying the materials of others with pen and paper; rather, they had elaborate, industrial setups comparable to the original publishing house. In short, they were a real and direct threat to the original publishers and authors, so some regulation was necessary to provide incentive for authors to create new materials.

Now, does internet music sharing compose a threat of similar magnitude to the music industry? Perhaps we should start a new thread to discuss it; I'm sure we'll derail this one too far if we start on this in here.

Just because it was first applied to naval thievery doesn't mean it can't be applied to other forms of stealing. And that's just what it is. Copying or downloading something without the author's or copyright owner's permission (other than for "fair use") is stealing.

What exactly would someone who violates a copyright be stealing? You can't exactly "steal" a potential for profit. Not only is that not tangible, it isn't even quantitative.

As for "stealing" the right of the author to control their work, then you are not "stealing" the work, but rather are violating the right of the author to a temporary monopoly on their work. Does that constitute theft? I'm not convinced that it does, but I'm willing to hear an argument.

I believe we should respect the author's right to temporarily monopolize their works, just as I should respect your right to privacy. But if I installed a camera in your house, would you call it murder?

Oh and why is calling someone a pirate because they Illegaly download stuff from
the Internet an insult?

Not an insult, just a poor choice of wording. As I previously stated, using "unauthorized copying" instead of "piracy" more adequately describes both the offense and the severity.

Fascist bastards.
This is equivalent to buying a recipe book, and copying down a single recipe. So essentially copying down anything from a book is, according to them, illegal.

Actually, copying more than a few lines or paragraphs from most books would constitute copyright violation, unless otherwise noted in the copyright notice of the book in question.

Further, on use of the word "pirate," the "American Heritage Dictionary" places this definition third in its list: "One who makes use of or reproduces the work of another without authorization." This provokes me to raise the following question.

Consider that copying the works of another is only illegal while that work is under copyright, and that copyright is finite (even if insanely long), then by copying something no longer under copyright, am I a pirate?

I would still be "stealing," as you so eloquently put it, but for some reason I would no longer be breaking the law. I'm rather sure that theft, except when disguised as something else, is quite illegal, so why not this?

[SilverCrusader]

Regardless, every word I type is in some book somewhere, so people could sue me for well, copy right issues, and they'll be sued too, and everyone would be suing everyone and the whole system falls apart. And thus, it fails.

[Grizzly]

In addition, consider that the original copyright "pirates" were illegal book publishers, not consumers. These publishers were not simply copying the materials of others with pen and paper; rather, they had elaborate, industrial setups comparable to the original publishing house. In short, they were a real and direct threat to the original publishers and authors, so some regulation was necessary to provide incentive for authors to create new materials.

Point taken. The vast majority of consumers, from my knowledge, who buy illegally copied materials have no knowledge that they are doing so. Alot of the entertainment mediums produced in many countries are illegally copied and sold (in mass quantities) in countries that have no respect for international copyright laws. Even in countries that do respect those laws, I am pretty sure there are people who are doing the same thing but on a quieter and smaller scale. I think this large scale copying is what hurts the industry the most.

What exactly would someone who violates a copyright be stealing? You can't exactly "steal" a potential for profit. Not only is that not tangible, it isn't even quantitative.

As for "stealing" the right of the author to control their work, then you are not "stealing" the work, but rather are violating the right of the author to a temporary monopoly on their work. Does that constitute theft? I'm not convinced that it does, but I'm willing to hear an argument.

By violating the copyright of a protected (copyright still valid) and in print (readily available for sale) version of any material, money is being lost by the publisher and the artist simply because a person is making use of a not paid for version of [whatever]. By my reasoning that constitutes theft, not in the same manner as if I mugged someone or robbed a bank but it's only a matter of degree. If I did this sort of thing, I would be enjoying something that another person(s) has every right to receive compensation for, but they aren't getting paid for it. So, in essance, it's morally no different than stealing. An analogy I might use is hiring a man to paint my house and then not paying him for the job. He put in the work, I'm benefitting from his work, I'm refusing to pay him for it. I have just stolen the value of his time and effort from him. I just didn't forcibly take anything from him.

I believe we should respect the author's right to temporarily monopolize their works, just as I should respect your right to privacy. But if I installed a camera in your house, would you call it murder?

No, I wouldn't call that murder. That would just be silly. But what you describe above and murder do share one thing in common: They are both punishable crimes. Both examples have very different motivations and outcomes, that's why the penalties are also very different. So trying to equate one with the other doesn't work except that both are examples of criminal behavior.

Consider that copying the works of another is only illegal while that work is under copyright, and that copyright is finite (even if insanely long), then by copying something no longer under copyright, am I a pirate?

I would still be "stealing," as you so eloquently put it, but for some reason I would no longer be breaking the law. I'm rather sure that theft, except when disguised as something else, is quite illegal, so why not this?

Short answer: No, you wouldn't be stealing. Once something gets out of copyright (the author no longer has any rights to the work and it becomes public domain), then this ceases to be an issue. You can't illeagaly copy or illeagally use something that is in the public domain unless you plagerise it for your own use. But I think that carries it's own penalties to your academic reputation rather than being something prosecutable. I actually have no idea what the length of a copyright is (I seem to recall death of the author plus 30 years, have to look it up) so even the implied moral connection to stealing I voiced earlier is no longer valid. If the author is dead, and his estate no longer has rights to the work, then even a weak case can not be made against freely copying the work.

[hammocksleeper]

In short, they were a real and direct threat to the original publishers and authors, so some regulation was necessary to provide incentive for authors to create new materials.

This is a tangent here, but I have two questions: is federal government regulation enforced by a monopoly on violence the only or best option to provide incentive to authors? That's a question worthy of thinking through, and not foolishly assuming the answer is yes. And is it really the best policy to artificially manipulate the free market with such a regulation, when the net effect is to stifle the creative efforts of the many (so-called evil pirates who are, in fact, producing a product) to save a few (published authors) and restrict output similar to OPEC and other collusive oligarchies?

[SilverCrusader]

Face it, music people don't need more money, they're swimming in it. So if they don't mind, they can all go fuck themselves.

[Modred]

is federal government regulation enforced by a monopoly on violence the only or best option to provide incentive to authors?

It may not be the best way; in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution, the Congress is given the ability to establish a system of copyrights and patents. Note they are not mandated to establish such systems. But this section also states the purpose shall be only for encouraging advancement in science and the arts and the scope shall remain limited in time.

Copyright and patent law can work against new authors/inventors/etc. The main problem with copyright being that it lasts far too long. The life of the author plus 70 years, and most likely up for retroactive lengthening within the next few years. Essentially, copyright is becoming of unlimited length while maintaining a guise of the finite. Authors of anthologies or derivative works suffer directly from this, because the original material may never be available for their use. (Imagine if it had been illegal to compile the writings of ancient Greek philosophers. We wouldn't have many of their writings!)

If you completely disregard all copyright, then I could take anything you write, re-write it to my own purposes, leave your name on it, and distribute it so that others took my words for yours. Hardly an ideal situation. Imagine what politicians would do to each other.

Perhaps a decent compromise would be to allow verbatim copying of a work while it's under copyright, perhaps with some additional stipulations of what you can do with those copies. For example, you could not mass produce and sell your verbatim copies while the work is under copyright, but you could make a copy for a friend or relative. Combine this with a shortened term of copyright, say 50 years flat for written works, and the author still maintains a copyright for more than the lifespan of all but the most significant works, but the copyright does not have the option to go on forever.

On terms of patent, I'm not sure that patent should be done away with, but something must be done. Consider that many technical and scientific writiers tend to keep secret as much of their procedure as possible, while still providing enough detail to prove their correctness, so that others cannot "steal" their idea. That hardly seems to advance the progress of science. In the software world (which shouldn't have patents anyway, since algorithms are considered pure mathematical constructs, which are not patentable; however, there's some special case where an algorithm running on a machine is patentable or something like that), how could I write a decent program of my own if I could not use new techniques discovered in the last decade or so?

is it really the best policy to artificially manipulate the free market with such a regulation, when the net effect is to stifle the creative efforts of the many (so-called evil pirates who are, in fact, producing a product) to save a few (published authors) and restrict output similar to OPEC and other collusive oligarchies?

First: What creative effort is necessary to simply copy another? I contend that this takes no creativity whatsoever, so by just copying the work of another, the offender in question is neither making a new product or contributing to society with new information. They may benefit themselves, which may be fine under certain circumstances, but they are not "creating."

Second: When functioning properly, copyright simply gives an additional right to anyone who creates some sort of tangible work. In this discussion, the comparison to OPEC most aptly fits to the RIAA, a corporate oligarchy that misuses copyright. Copyright does not inherently require organizations like the RIAA to function, and anyone who creates new materials can enjoy copyright without being part of an organization like the RIAA. In short, I fail to see how this assertion even follows from the discussion.

[Gunmonk]

Let them... the fact that I'm in a band... and trying to actually do something/make a living with it should prove something... if not my friend girls dad is a lawyer... Yayy for daddy!!!

[hammocksleeper]

Modred it's clear you've thought this through, which makes me glad, so I'm not going to try and persuade you one way or the other, just going to expound on my own opinions

If you completely disregard all copyright, then I could take anything you write, re-write it to my own purposes, leave your name on it, and distribute it so that others took my words for yours. Hardly an ideal situation. Imagine what politicians would do to each other.
Politicians' platforms aren't copyrighted, and "stealing" from one another comes up in the media quite a bit. But this is a self-enforcing wrongful act - every man has his reputation to worry about. (Reputation self-enforces a lot, if you really want to read something interesting check out John Roberts' award-winning book The Modern Firm, which explains a lot of the microeconomics behind management theory and can be applied to more than just business.)

First: What creative effort is necessary to simply copy another? I contend that this takes no creativity whatsoever, so by just copying the work of another, the offender in question is neither making a new product or contributing to society with new information. They may benefit themselves, which may be fine under certain circumstances, but they are not "creating."On the contrary, the propagation of information is indeed a significant contribution to society, one sometimes hindered by copyright law. For some easy examples of how the "non-creative" act of information dissemination can benefit large groups of people, take a look at the numerous organizations giving out free Bibles, Qurans, and Books of Mormon; or the non-partisan website factcheck.org (http://factcheck.org) that takes advantage of freely distributed campaign material from politicians in combination with research material (at present made available to them by its authors under copyright law) to correct misinformation and disinformation in the media and press.

Second: When functioning properly, copyright simply gives an additional right to anyone who creates some sort of tangible work. In this discussion, the comparison to OPEC most aptly fits to the RIAA, a corporate oligarchy that misuses copyright. Copyright does not inherently require organizations like the RIAA to function, and anyone who creates new materials can enjoy copyright without being part of an organization like the RIAA. In short, I fail to see how this assertion even follows from the discussion.
First of all, copyright allows an author to restrict output of the property he holds under it. Without question. Restriction of output is the primary method by which OPEC and all other collusive oligarchies operate in order to generate greater profit by reducing consumer surplus. There's your connection.

Secondly, Copyright is not an "additional right" that you gain when you create something. Copyright is a negative right that renders certain restrictions which are forced on everyone other the author. Our government functions by limiting freedom in ways purported to be in line with good public policy, not by affording us specific pieces of our freedom that is god-given.

[Modred]

Politicians' platforms aren't copyrighted, and "stealing" from one another comes up in the media quite a bit.

I meant that more in terms of what politicians write and is later thrown back at them by other politicians. Their writings should fall under copyright, depending on the capacity in which they were written.

For some easy examples of how the "non-creative" act of information dissemination can benefit large groups of people, take a look at the numerous organizations giving out free Bibles, Qurans, and Books of Mormon;

Your assertion was that copyright was inhibiting creativity and I contested that dissemination of information does not equate creativity. But on the note of distributing Bibles, Qurans, political pamphlets, and similar materials, you must take into account that these materials are legally produced and obtained under copyright law. They work within the system, rather than against it, although I do not doubt that the system can at times inhibit them.

For example, most Bible's I've seen have a copyright clause that allows some copying, but no more than 200 verses or a total of 10% of your final work, whichever contains less of the Biblical text. (Note that these figures may not be exact or standard, but that's the general idea of the copyright clause.) So someone printing up their own Bibles for distribution would probably fall victim to this clause and might face litigation from the publisher. However, the organizations distributing Bibles for free are not printing up the books, but simply buy or receive donations of Bibles authorized and produced by the publisher. I'm certain that those who give away Quorans and the Book of Mormon act similarly.

If these distributors were making copies of those texts and then disseminating them, perhaps you could make case that copyright violation was contributing to society, but so long as your examples follow copyright law, then simply copying the work of another still provides no advancement, no benefit.

Also, pure dissemination of texts does not, as I stated, "contribute to society with new information" (emphasis added). In line with your claim of hindering the creativity of so-called pirate, I simply expressed that violating copyright does not create new information.


First of all, copyright allows an author to restrict output of the property he holds under it. Without question. Restriction of output is the primary method by which OPEC and all other collusive oligarchies operate in order to generate greater profit by reducing consumer surplus. There's your connection.

I still find it a rather loose connection. Although both OPEC and copyright law establish "restriction of output," their goals are quite different. OPEC exists to manipulate the market in favor of higher profits for their members. Copyright exists to provide incentive for authors, scientists, inventors, and similar persons to publish their works. Now, does OPEC exist to enhance the state of the art in oil production? Similar to OPEC, the RIAA and similar associations exist primarily for profit generation, not for advancing the state of the art. They merely use copyright as a tool to achieve their ends; if you remove copyright from the equation, these organizations will still exist and find means of restricting access to materials they produce.

Consider that OPEC cannot control what we do with our oil after purchase. But they still restrict how much oil we can receive. Likewise, organizations that now leverage copyright for profit generation could still restrict dissemination of new materials produced by their members, even without copyright. We might be able to copy the works they've already produced, but what if they simply move to new media that they can more easily control, such as eBooks? Eventually they wouldn't even need copyright, as you could only access their materials through the approved channels, which have all the required security checks to ensure you cannot copy it.

Secondly, Copyright is not an "additional right" that you gain when you create something. Copyright is a negative right that renders certain restrictions which are forced on everyone other the author.

Oh, but it is an additional right, created by Congress and conferred to the authors who make new works. But it is a temporary right, that should expire after a certain length of time, at which the public regains all rights to the material. Because ultimately, the goal of copyright is to entice artists and authors to create new things for the public good. I'm deeply troubled by the trend of continually extending copyright so that the public never regains its rights to the copyrighted material.

Our government functions by limiting freedom in ways purported to be in line with good public policy, not by affording us specific pieces of our freedom that is god-given.

The government restricts various rights all the time. Our rights are like a commodity that can be traded for various service from the government. If the service rendered does not equate value with the rights surrendered, as you contest, then we should alter or abolish the trade. So rather than look at this so starkly as "we either have rights or we don't," we should weigh the costs and benefits of copyright with the rights the public gives up to support this system.

We can't just look at this as "the government takes our rights for the benefit of the few," because those few are supposedly creating works for the benefit of the whole.

[hammocksleeper]

Your assertion was that copyright was inhibiting creativity and I contested that dissemination of information does not equate creativity. But on the note of distributing Bibles, Qurans, political pamphlets, and similar materials, you must take into account that these materials are legally produced and obtained under copyright law. They work within the system, rather than against it, although I do not doubt that the system can at times inhibit them.Of course they work within the system, they are required to do so. But if copyright law were repealed, I guarantee that the amount of information being spread (and by proxy, social benefit) would increase, being thus hindered by the law.

Also, pure dissemination of texts does not, as I stated, "contribute to society with new information" (emphasis added). In line with your claim of hindering the creativity of so-called pirate, I simply expressed that violating copyright does not create new information.
That statement only holds true if you define society as the group of people who already possess knowledge of said information. According to your reasoning, a Christian mission to China in 200 AD spreads no "new information" since they are not "creating" anything, and thereby can confer no extra benefit on society. There is something wrong here with your logic, and I hope you can see it.

I still find it a rather loose connection. Although both OPEC and copyright law establish "restriction of output," their goals are quite different. OPEC exists to manipulate the market in favor of higher profits for their members. Copyright exists to provide incentive for authors, scientists, inventors, and similar persons to publish their works. Now, does OPEC exist to enhance the state of the art in oil production?
Actually, yes. By increasing profits, OPEC (the restriction of output) provides an incentive to oil producers to fund R&D that results in greater yield from an oil field of a given size - important in the context of the finite quantity of oil on the planet - as well as advancements in processes of oil drilling, refinement, and distribution with a portion of those benefits passed on to the consumer.

But hopefully I can show you how that doesn't even matter. You are correct in saying that the intentions of OPEC and those of Congress may not be the same. But if those intentions effect action which have the same consequences, it doesn't matter what those intentions were. Have you read or seen I Robot? I wanted to kill Will Smith because he slept with my wife, and by murdering him there is no longer another man sleeping with my wife. Mother Robot V.I.K.I. wanted to kill Will Smith because it had determined that mankind was a threat to itself. In this example, despite vastly different intentions, both killers are wrong. (This of course brings up the element of cost-benefit analysis that you mentioned, involving costs and benefits that are perhaps impossible to measure.) The fact remains that consumer surplus is squeezed smaller in return for higher profits to the copyright holder. You can argue whether this is just, but you can't argue whether this is true.

And you're right that "OPEC cannot control what we do with our oil after purchase." The concept of IP licensing as it pertains to copyright law is even more powerful than the diabolical scheming of OPEC.

Similar to OPEC, the RIAA and similar associations exist primarily for profit generation, not for advancing the state of the art. They merely use copyright as a tool to achieve their ends; if you remove copyright from the equation, these organizations will still exist and find means of restricting access to materials they produce.You're wrong: in business outside the scope of copyright, activity among companies producing the same good that restricts output is illegal in the US under antitrust legislation, and when enforced this legislation is extremely effective at its job.


We might be able to copy the works they've already produced, but what if they simply move to new media that they can more easily control, such as eBooks? Eventually they wouldn't even need copyright, as you could only access their materials through the approved channels, which have all the required security checks to ensure you cannot copy it.A fine example of a free-market solution to a problem that Congress unnecessarily and inefficiently attempts to solve with copyright law.

Oh, but it is an additional right, created by Congress and conferred to the authors who make new works. But it is a temporary right, that should expire after a certain length of time, at which the public regains all rights to the material.

I'm not sure you understand the perspective I am trying to make plain: the government really has no power to "give" rights - it can only tell us what rights haven't yet been taken away from us, enforceable by a legitimized monopoly on violence.

There is an element of weighing costs and benefits to this issue though, that is not easily measured. Which is why I said at the beginning that I'm not going to try and convince you, just show you my opinion.

[Modred]

But if those intentions effect action which have the same consequences, it doesn't matter what those intentions were.

So, in the case of removing government regulation and book publishers moving to a medium they can rule with an iron fist, you may actually have less freedom from the publishers than you currently have. At best, you maintain approximately the same level of freedom, because they will find a way to restrict you with or without copyright (imagine end-user license agreements that require you to not share the book with anyone. You might not go to jail, but I'm sure they could litigate in civil court, thereby still restricting you under threat of force). Therefore, your solution and mine are equally deficient. =p