Doing work
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| skelband Jul 05, 2010 3:27 PM EDT |
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I think that the whole concept of copyright should be repealed. The very idea that someone should be paid for something that did not require work is wrong. So, you say how does a musician (of which I am one) earn money? They perform. The natural law of things is that you get paid for effort and expertise. You pay a lawyer for his time because it is valuable to you. You pay a builder to build your house because he knows how to build houses and you do not and his time is valuable. You pay a rock band to perform to you because they make great music and their time and skill is valuable to you. Wedding photographers get paid to take photographs because they offer a valued service which takes time and expertise. Since when was it right to charge for something that involves little or no effort on your part? Manufacturing CDs is a low value activity. Why should the law restrict my performing that low value activity? When I go to work, I get paid for the time I spend there doing what I am asked to do. I get paid once and only once. This means that I work and keep working to earn my keep, because my time and my skills are valuable to my employer. Recording one song, duplicating it and using the law to enforce some kind of exclusivity on that is wrong. It is enforcing the remuneration for something that requires little or no effort. Agree with me or not, that it what I think. BTW copying CDs is copyright infringment, not stealing which is something defined very clearly and precisely in law. |
| dinotrac Jul 05, 2010 3:50 PM EDT |
skelband - So how does a writer earn money? |
| jezuch Jul 05, 2010 3:55 PM EDT |
As an extension of this, remember that the current copyright regime extends beyond the author's death, so some lucky people live off *somebody else's work*, without doing anything creative themselves. |
| skelband Jul 05, 2010 3:57 PM EDT |
> So how does a writer earn money? That is a very good question and something that I have been putting a great deal of thought into. I'm afraid I have no good answer to that question at the moment but I will continue to think upon it. In history, writers sought sponsorship for their activities, and many were storytellers, so were additionally performers, for which they could elicit remuneration. I value writers greatly and would want a vehicle for their expertise. Additionally, I would pay for a book that I wanted to read even though I do not support a law that enforces copyright, but I accept that many others would not. Production of a book is a non-trivial activity which I value and would pay for. The new electronic frontier, for some, makes this point irrelevant however. |
| tuxchick Jul 05, 2010 4:21 PM EDT |
Nobody reads past the headlines, do they. Equating the work of a creative artists to selling a hunk of plastic is utterly ridiculous, and yet it keeps getting trotted out as a valid argument. Allow me to quote myself, attempting to convey the fabulous value of inexpensive recording media and distribution: Quoting: One of more repugnant entitlement attitudes that keeps getting parroted is "Give away your recordings and make money doing live performances." That is selfish and utterly clueless. First of all, a music CD or download is an incredible bargain for both the customer and the artist. We buy a recording for a few dollars, and then we get to enjoy the talent and hard work of our favorite performers whenever and wherever we want. We don't have to wait for them to come give a live show, and then pay a lot more money for a lot more hassle, and sometimes less enjoyment. They get to create a good, pleasing recording under controlled conditions and then share it with as many fans as want it. It seems like the more people get, the more whiny and ungrateful they become. (Hey, kind of the FOSS world, eh?) When I see this entitlement attitude, where a person thinks its OK to just take something, where they scorn the talent and hard work of creative artists and authors and so on, it reinforces my feeling that infringement is too mild a term, and it really is theft. Sponsorship is a copout-- as I said already, that is a proven dead-end. And why should someone else pay for something that you want? That's the crux of all of this, getting a free ride. How does a writer earn money? Or musician, or film maker, or photographer, or what-have you? By selling copies of their work to people who want to own copies of their work. It can't get any simpler. The only reason copyrights even enter into the conversation is because of all the freeloaders who have no conscience about taking or exploiting someone else's work. So-called fans, the RIAA/MPAA-- there is no difference; a ripoff is a ripoff. Unlike a lot of folks, I believe that we do own copies of creative works, we do not license them. I also believe that "sharing" hundreds of copies with hundreds of your closest friends is immoral and unethical. Let 'em buy their own. The details of what constitutes infringement of easily-copied digital media are debatable; what is not debatable is no one is entitled to a free ride just because it is so easy to dodge paying their own way. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 05, 2010 4:54 PM EDT |
> I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I think that the whole concept of copyright should be repealed. Welcome to the radical limb of the LXer binary tree. I'm Bob, I've been here for a couple of years now. Sometimes it gets really lonely, sometimes it's very loud. Right now the din is quite loud, such is life. You might find some of these enlightening, especially to cure the last lingering vestiges of the "labor theory of value" that I see in your original post: Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine Against Intellectual Monopoly http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.h... Stephan Kinsella Against Intellectual Property http://www.movingtofreedom.org/2006/10/29/stephan-kinsella-a... Donald C. Ernsberger The Labor Theory of Value http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/labor-theory-val.html And if you want to know more about why, when faced with something like "abolish copyright", some people will react with serious hostility and violent language, as if you've just suggested boiling babies in oil, fear-based slogans and emotionality, Stefan Molyneux A Bomb In The Brain part 4 - The Death of Reason http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S16EHfKRLfc "What we have here is a failure to communicate" http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-we-got-her... First principles are dreadfully important. While you (or I) may think we are presenting a logical argument, those opposed are opposed not because your (or my) argument isn't logical, but because their starting point is so different. So the "logic" which seems so clear, to them has no basis in reality and therefore makes no sense what so ever. It doesn't matter, for example, that the definition of "theft" is "to deprive" and that making a copy does not deprive anyone of the original. Because those who would use the word "stealing" (theft) to define copying are convinced beyond contradiction that something is being taken, so the originator is being deprived. They use the word that is defined by their emotion about the subject. When contradicted, the natural reaction is self defense, so they assign the most base of motivations to anyone who would contradict such an obvious conclusion. I quote, > "what is not debatable is no one is entitled to a free ride just because it is so easy to dodge paying their own way." Not one person who has been pointing out the shortcomings of copyright has talked about wanting anything "for free". That motivation has been projected by those arguing from emotion in order to smear those with whom they disagree, making them evil and thereby rationalizing the violent emotional reactions that they are experiencing without having to take responsibility for their emotional over-reaction. Molyneux goes into the physiological reactions to contradiction that make such rationalizations quite easy to understand once you know what to look for. I suggest you look over the other threads under this article, to see how the same things apply. And welcome, up a tree and out on a limb. I'd shake your hand, but I think I'll try holding on with both hands for a while, for the reaction I expect this posting is going to receive. |
| skelband Jul 05, 2010 5:19 PM EDT |
tuxchick - Wow, there is a lot in that post and I don't disagree with a lot of it. And there seems to be a lot of rage as well. Please calm down. You make some valuable points about remuneration to creative artists and indeed it is a big problem especially in the modern network environment. However, you seem to be missing one or two points. 1) The Internet and computers are making all of that irrelevant. A law is only as good as it is enforceable regardless of the rights and wrongs of it and copyright law on the Internet is lost and it was lost a long time ago. 2) Writers, photographers, film makers and musicians are still making money despite all the doom and gloom. Music sales are rising, not falling despite all the vitriol from the studios. The real story here is how media distribution is changing the way markets work and how current distribution channels are finding it difficult to adapt. Musicians are authoring and distributing their own music, cutting out the middleman. Authors are distributing their own work electronically. The real potential losers are the big media conglomerates. Wow, where do I begin? Quoting: Giving live performances is expensive and exhausting, and it limits the audience to whoever can physically attend and fit into the venue.Welcome to the real world. I have to work at least 5 days every week just to put bread on the table and so does my wife. What is so bad about working? For some of the top bands, I think cramming in 20-30,000 people in one time is not too bad. My local garage can only service 2 or 3 people's cars an hour and they survive. Quoting: ..... and I don't know what moviemakers should do-- stage plays?That's what cinemas are for. BTW, cinemas are as popular as ever. Quoting: I suppose authors should give away books and then charge to give live readings,...You have a good point here and I have no answer to that. Quoting: Photographers-- slide shows? Get real. This attitude of entitlement at the expense of creators and artists is exactly what fuels the abuses of the entertainment industry.The good photographers sell their work without the need for copyright laws. They sell their pictures to publications or they take photographs to order. Other photographers I know sell their photographs online with samples containing a disfiguring watermark. There are ways and means Quoting: I also believe that "sharing" hundreds of copies with hundreds of your closest friends is immoral and unethicalDoes anyone really do that? I think that is a bit of an exaggeration. Quoting: The only reason copyrights even enter into the conversation is because of all the freeloaders who have no conscience about taking or exploiting someone else's work.I think that you will find that the vast majority of people still buy CDs and increasingly electronic music. Despite the best efforts of the media industry's shills, CDs are still being bought in their millions although being superseded by electronic forms DVD sales are high, Blu-ray not so well, but for a different reason. Cinemas are doing very well thank you. If book sales were a dead-end, Amazon would be out of business. Where there are laws, there are always law breakers. If this were not the case, then there would be no reason for laws. The question really is are there enough people who abide by the law such that there is no significant problem? The big problem with these discussions is regardless of the law, what is the issue? Is it: 1) People are copying music and it is against the law. I feel repulsed because they are law breakers and I am not, and feel strongly enough to shout about it to anyone that will listen, or 2) People are copying music that they would otherwise buy, therefore creative artists are losing potential revenue. I think largely 2) is incorrect since most of the copiers would not buy the music, so we are left with 1). |
| skelband Jul 05, 2010 5:40 PM EDT |
Bob - Thanks for the welcome. Quoting: Not one person who has been pointing out the shortcomings of copyright has talked about wanthing anything "for free". The reply from tuxchick is a good example. I think creative artists should be remunerated for their work. I just don't think copyright is any longer the right or workable vehicle of enforcement. I also think the best of most people. The people that buy CDs and DVDs do so because they see value in what they are buying and that is their motivation.Not fear of the law. I could copy something from the TV and burn it onto a DVD. But why bother? The quality will be awful and I can't be bothered. For a few quid I can buy it ready-made and top-quality with extra stuff which they didn't show on the telly. It has value to me. The VAST majority of people are not burglars; not because it is illegal but because they believe it is wrong. The same with murder and fraud. The others are a very small minority. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 05, 2010 5:58 PM EDT |
> The VAST majority of people are not burglars; not because it is illegal but because they believe it is wrong. The same with murder and fraud. It seems you and I are going to get along quite well. I, too, recognize that the vast majority of people behave decently towards others the vast majority of the time. That's the path of reasoning that led me to anarcho-capitalism and agorism. |
| hkwint Jul 05, 2010 6:46 PM EDT |
Quoting:The natural law of things is that you get paid for effort and expertise. Incomplete: With the same effort and expertise you can dig and find gold, or iron. Given 1 kilo of both, the amount of electrons, neutrons and protons are roughly the same. But their configuration is different, one is scarce, the other is not. So people are paid if they can offer something which is scarce. With some effort put in finding gold, you generate more wealth than by the same effort put in finding Iron. (learned some of that from Bob & reading Mises). Say you have a harddisk with random bits on it: Something like that isn't scarce. Say you have a harddisk with Carla's (tuxchicks) article on it: Something like that is scarce. Even if both are the same weight and matter. Needless to say there's more demand for harddisks with something valuable on them, so Carla's harddisk has more value. In contrary to some other people, I don't consider copying Carla's harddisk (if she doesn't want to) theft. However, some people would argue, nothing is removed so no harm is being done when copying. Such is not true, as the value of the harddisk holding her article is based on the scarcity of the information on it (and the want for it). That information can be seen as a kind of 'configuration of the matter on her harddisk'. Much in the same way the value of gold is based on the scarcity of that particular configuration of matter. If we copy the configuration of gold atoms to every atom currently in let's say the Mount Everest (several cubicle km's / miles), it's evident the value of the existing gold declined as it became less scarce. So part of the value of the existing gold evaporates. If we copy the configuration of Carla her harddisk to every harddisk on earth, it's evident the value of Carla's existing harddisk diminished, as the information on it became less scarce. So part of the value of the existing harddisk evaporated. So she's harmed as the value of her harddisk diminished. That's my view on the issue, now you don't have to read all my other reactions - if you ever intended. About rewarding the author: Some might say the issue could be resolved by the first person who contracts the author to write something paying several thousands of dollars, and then people could make mutual contracts which don't apply to people who are not party to that deal, or the rest gets it for free. Others might say copyright is a good tool to protect information from becoming less scarce without the creator being compensated for his / her property (the harddisk with a particular configuration) becoming less scarce and therefore less valuable. After all, there are also some laws in place (I assume) to prevent paper banknotes from becoming less scarce - up to the point where so many copies are made that all the previously issued banknotes become worthless. There are also some laws in place / agreements to keep nukes scarce, because the scarcer they are, the more valuable they are. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 05, 2010 7:15 PM EDT |
> After all, there are also some laws in place (I assume) to prevent paper banknotes from becoming less scarce Sadly, no. The USD "suspended redeemability" in 1970. That means there is no legal limit. Hyperinflation in Germany, 1914-1923 http://mises.org/daily/2347 Welcome to Zimbabwe http://mises.org/daily/4244 I'd really rather argue the efficacy of copyright, the future of intellectual property doesn't look as gloomy as what is going to happen to these fiat currencies. BTW, get out of debt and buy gold. It certainly can't hurt, right? |
| skelband Jul 05, 2010 7:35 PM EDT |
hkwint - Quoting:Some might say the issue could be resolved by the first person who contracts the author to write something paying several thousands of dollars, and then people could make mutual contracts which don't apply to people who are not party to that deal, or the rest gets it for free. This actually works for some people. Red Hat for example. What they are selling isn't Linux, but support - a valuable service. It costs them to package and produce Red Hat, but that is not how they make their money. Let me be plain: I can't offer a complete and fair alternative to copyright law but I do know two things: 1) As far as law enforcement is concerned, copyright is no longer workable for preventing copies of creative works on the Internet, and 2) I don't actually think it is a significant problem at the moment for creative artists regardless of what the industry shills say. The best way to tackle "piracy" is to make it irrelevant. If paying for the "real thing" is easier and/or better than getting a "pirated copy", then people will do it. Path of least resistance and all that..... |
| hkwint Jul 05, 2010 8:14 PM EDT |
Hence my pledge for micropayments! Nowadays, as someone who runs Linux on the desktop, The Piratebay and 'illigal' mp3's are more convenient than for example big websites like iTunes. I can listen to radio for free when listening to adds from time to time, but at this moment I cannot download songs for free with adds in between them 'injected'. Also, hence my other reactions about a new 'search' for an equilibrium, the same search which started after movable type printing changed the world and made lots of people whose job it was to 'copy' unemployed. |
| gus3 Jul 05, 2010 8:21 PM EDT |
Quoting:I can listen to radio for free when listening to adds from time to time, but at this moment I cannot download songs for free with adds in between them 'injected'.Have you tried Magnatune lately? They're appending adverts to their free tracks. |
| tuxchick Jul 05, 2010 8:24 PM EDT |
skelband, you're wrong so much I can only address a few things. Quoting: And there seems to be a lot of rage as well. Please calm down. I can't imagine why anyone would be mad at being told their work is worthless because "Manufacturing CDs is a low value activity." (That's sarcasm.) Though the sheer cluelessness of it is nearly artistic. Quoting: The good photographers sell their work without the need for copyright laws. 100% wrong. Photographers get plagiarized possibly more than any other creators. It's a huge problem. Quoting: I think creative artists should be remunerated for their work. I just don't think copyright is any longer the right or workable vehicle of enforcement. Right, you just want someone else to pay. The cost of creative goods is lower than ever, there are all kinds of legitimate free venues, and that's still not good enough. Quoting: That's what cinemas are for. BTW, cinemas are as popular as ever In other words, "make it impossible for me to copy and then I won't. I only do the right thing when someone makes me." Quoting: The real potential losers are the big media conglomerates. Wrong. When people are too frikken cheap to even pay a buck directly to the artist, it's the artists that lose. Big media conglomerates have the muscle and resources to keep the sales flowing, and in the end they don't care who else loses as long they have theirs. Quoting: Quoted: Giving live performances is expensive and exhausting, and it limits the audience to whoever can physically attend and fit into the venue. You know, sometimes I think that particular bit of dopiness is planted on purpose by the RIAA, just to make their opponents look dumb. The simplest solution is the one I already said-- pay for your own stuff, support creative artists directly, celebrate and appreciate these wonderful modern digital media and distribution. Easy, simple, ethical. |
| jdixon Jul 05, 2010 8:27 PM EDT |
> I can listen to radio for free when listening to adds from time to time, but at this moment I cannot download songs for free with adds in between them 'injected'. An FM tuner in your PC may solve that problem. Alternatively, simply feed a line out from an amp into your sound card's line in and use Audacity to record it. Yeah, technically it falls into the same "copyright infringement" category as downloading the music, but I haven't heard of anyone getting sued for it. |
| tuxchick Jul 05, 2010 8:30 PM EDT |
Quoting: What they are selling isn't Linux, but support - a valuable service. It costs them to package and produce Red Hat, but that is not how they make their money. I think that is a huge weakness of FOSS. When developers cannot sell their software (because getting anyone to pay is so difficult) it causes two big problems: 1. Devs have to go to work for corporations, which gives them more influence on FOSS, and 2. We lose talented developers because they have to resort to other means to make a living. That is why I support my fave projects as best as I can, though it's not much it's better than nothing. I wonder how many of the people who say "oh sell services or swag or something else" would like their bosses to tell them "You're not getting a paycheck anymore, you're going to have to get a job or sell swag or something to support your job." |
| skelband Jul 05, 2010 8:55 PM EDT |
tuxchick -Quoting:100% wrong. Photographers get plagiarized possibly more than any other creators. It's a huge problem.Perhaps so, but are they losing money because of it? You are confusing your sense of fair play with loss of revenue to creative artists. Quoting: Right, you just want someone else to pay. The cost of creative goods is lower than ever, there are all kinds of legitimate free venues, and that's still not good enough.You still are missing the point. The people that are prepared to pay do. Those that are not would not anyway. Quoting:In other words, "make it impossible for me to copy and then I won't. I only do the right thing when someone makes me."Erm, no point missed again. I go to the cinema because it is cool and I value cinemas. I could watch the film on a DVD, but the cinema adds value and that's why I pay. Many other people agree which is why cinemas are making a comeback. Quoting:Wrong. When people are too frikken cheap to even pay a buck directly to the artist, it's the artists that lose. Big media conglomerates have the muscle and resources to keep the sales flowing, and in the end they don't care who else loses as long they have theirs.Those people to which you are referring would not pay anyway regardless of how cheap it was. Ergo, the artist has lost nothing. Again, you are confusing your sense of "fair play" with economic loss. Quoting:You know, sometimes I think that particular bit of dopiness is planted on purpose by the RIAA, just to make their opponents look dumb.I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean here. I merely stated that getting revenue from 20-30,000 paying customers at 60 quid a pop for one night's work is not bad work. Quoting:I think that is a huge weakness of FOSS. When developers cannot sell their software (because getting anyone to pay is so difficult) it causes two big problems: 1. Devs have to go to work for corporations, which gives them more influence on FOSS, and 2. We lose talented developers because they have to resort to other means to make a living. That is why I support my fave projects as best as I can, though it's not much it's better than nothing. You are still missing the issue. Red Hat and others are selling something valuable. The software is merely the vehicle for them. You had some pretty disparaging comments about the FOSS movement in another post which I don't really fathom. OSS developers are the most generous social-minded people on the planet, otherwise they wouldn't do what they do. Companies like Red Hat are also proving that you don't necessarily need a government mandated monopoly to make a successful business. What they are doing different is offering effort and expertise which people are willing to buy. If you don't agree, then I'm not sure what to add that would convince you. |
| bigg Jul 05, 2010 9:03 PM EDT |
> I think that is a huge weakness of FOSS Not really. Selling shrink-wrapped software is not in any way profitable, for most developers/companies. Microsoft, Oracle, and Adobe make big money. Where would Red Hat be if they sold the software rather than the service? Good luck with that - no company on the face of this planet would have been able to compete against Microsoft in the OS market ten years ago. None. FOSS took off largely because it was the only way to compete. Mozilla wouldn't have made it two months if they had tried to sell a product on the shelves of Best Buy. Today they are a very profitable company. The book business is different - so far. That doesn't mean something new won't come along. And that something may, like FOSS, turn out to be legal. Life's tough. New business models come along and beat up on the old business models. Edit: I forgot to add: look at the newspaper business. They got beat up by online news sources. Today they're in serious trouble. The newspapers couldn't compete when they went against rivals who were giving away a product at least as good as what they were offering. |
| dinotrac Jul 05, 2010 9:49 PM EDT |
All - Note how weaselly Bob has to be: Quoting: It doesn't matter, for example, that the definition of "theft" is "to deprive" and that making a copy does not deprive anyone of the original. He pretends that the article at issue is a piece of plastic or some paper bound together. To see the complete falsehood of this ridiculous statement, you need only to understand Carla's clearly made point by going to the local Staples to see how cheap blank media and paper are. The original copy (a recording is a copy of a performance) is not what people are stealing. They are stealing the legally-granted rights of the artist in the creative work embedded in that copy. Bob and others want to pretend that the creative work is some intangible nothing, but earlier, in another thread, I sued a famous quote from Shakespeare's Othello -- Iago's line about a man's name being more important than his money. That tiny soliloquy is tangible enough that it has survived 500 years, is still performed and enjoyed today, and is still attributed to Shakespeare. The orginal Globe theatre, however, a structure even Bob might have recognized as being tangible -- unless he doesn't recognize the existence of wood, dirt, and straw -- lasted all of 14 years. Bob, I know that you don't think Shakespeare could have created anything of value because that is the logical and necessary conclusion of your arguments. I respectfully disagree. |
| tracyanne Jul 06, 2010 12:04 AM EDT |
Quoting:I also believe that "sharing" hundreds of copies with hundreds of your closest friends You have hundreds of close friends? Where do you live? Facebook? |
| skelband Jul 06, 2010 1:08 AM EDT |
dinotrac - I disagree with your analysis. Quoting:Bob and others want to pretend that the creative work is some intangible nothing... Where do you get the idea that Bob or I think creative work is nothing? It is certainly intangible inasmuch as it is not physical. But that is entirely irrelevant. It has value. What exactly is your point? 1) That people who copy CDs and give them to their friends is breaching copyright? Well that is certainly true and nobody debates that. 2) That copying CDs is "stealing"? Well that debate has been done to death: no it isn't according to the law. It's breaching copyright which is different. 3) That copyright law is successfully protecting the income of creative artists? Well that is up for discussion. I reckon not since copying and distribution is rampant and no-one seems to know how to stop it or whether it is worth trying. Additionally, would the income of creative artists be significantly different if someone managed to figure out a foolproof way to stop it? Well are CD and Video sales more or less now that we have the Internet? Has the sale of creative works increased or decreased proportional to the size of the Internet? This is the crux of the problem. Illegal copying and distribution is certainly massively increased by the Internet, but so have legitimate sales. The red herring argument is that since copying has increased, we assume that a great number of those copying episodes are potential sales lost. I respectfully suggest that that may be a false assumption. |
| dinotrac Jul 06, 2010 8:32 AM EDT |
skelband -- My, oh my. You really need to fix that teleprompter. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 06, 2010 9:22 AM EDT |
Dino, > Note how weaselly Bob has to be: As I said, smearing the opposition to make them evil, to rationalize the violent emotional reaction you're already having, and to avoid having to take responsibility for that emotional over-reaction. Dino, know thyself first. |
| dinotrac Jul 06, 2010 9:32 AM EDT |
Well, Bob -- The fact is that you keep going back to media and ignoring the actual value at issue. How else should I put it? You are trying to make the issue be about something that it's not. |
| gus3 Jul 06, 2010 9:58 AM EDT |
Quoting:You have hundreds of close friends? Where do you live? Facebook?That's her point. When "sharing" is with "hundreds" of one's "close friends," it's no longer "sharing," it's "thievery," it's "being a scofflaw," it's "a rap sheet a mile long." |
| tuxchick Jul 06, 2010 10:03 AM EDT |
I must admit the endless tap-dancing is a wee bit entertaining. Such shifty moves! |
| azerthoth Jul 06, 2010 10:38 AM EDT |
Wow dino, that was a fantastic job of misstating Bobs position and arguments. But hey, when illogic fails being snarky is perfectly reasonable. Right TC? I landed my arguments in another thread, but to restate, either Bob is right or SCOTUS is wrong. Darn that shifty dance moves. Meh, I wash my hands of this. |
| Teron Jul 06, 2010 10:51 AM EDT |
dinotrac, I'd appreciate if you got rid of that derisive tone in the post above and others concerning this article. It's just annoying to read. Also, how on earth can something intangible be stolen? Music, articles, images, programs, all are ultimately ideas and a series of ones and zeroes. Ideas are, by nature, unfettered by physical limitations - they're an emergent property of emotion and reason, spreading from one container to another as a fact of nature. Wherever their copying is easy, the spread of ideas is impossible to control without an Orwellian control regime. It's just that nowadays the easy copying extends to other things than just the brain. Should we sue apes for copying the idea of cracking nuts with stones from us? Copyright worked in the past because copying with methods other than the brain was slow, expensive and difficult. In effect, things were scarce because they were so strictly bound to a physical medium. Now that the progress of technology has freed more complex expressions of ideas from physical shackles, people still insist that ideas should be treated as physical things contrary to their nature. This is impossible. Copyright, as a law, is unenforceable without an Orwellian control regime, a thing I believe I can pretty safely say none of us wants. So, if the law is utterly useless, it can just as well be done away with. That is not to say that one couldn't make a moral argument like "the intentional copying of someone's idea without his permission is wrong", which is certainly a feasible thing. It is just that turning such a moral code into law is impossible. It would be much more fruitful to ponder new ways for creative people to make money. Donate buttons on some sites are a wonderful start, but more is needed. Collectible printed CD cases and stuff are a nice idea, too. (Also, as far as writers making money: I, personally, see value in the bound book's convenience and thus buy pretty much all of my books in physical form. An e-reader is just not the same. The product thus has real value over a strictly digital copy. The real problem is the publishers rampantly copying the author's books without giving him/her a dime. Author Approved seals could be used to find legitimate publishers.) |
| dinotrac Jul 06, 2010 11:37 AM EDT |
Teron - How can something that is attributable, readily identified, and durable be intangible? From the free dictionary: in·tan·gi·ble Pronunciation (n-tnj-bl) adj. 1. Incapable of being perceived by the senses. 2. Incapable of being realized or defined. 3. Incorporeal. noun: 1. Something intangible, especially an asset that cannot be perceived by the senses. Often used in the plural: intangibles such as goodwill and dedication. 2. Law Incorporeal property such as bank deposits, stocks, bonds, and promissory notes. Often used in the plural: a state tax on intangibles. Let us return to Othello. The non-legalistic definitions almost apply, except that, when read or performed, we can clearly recognize Othello -- we may not be able to perceive when it is not in some medium (book, stage, etc), but we recognize it when we see it and know it distinct from other things. Not only that, we would recognize Othello even if it were updated, just as we recognize Romeo and Juliet in West Side Story, or Heart of Darkness in Apocalypse Now. Othello is not some mystic force in the ether, or just some idea. It is a real work created by a real human being and we all know it. As to the legalistic definitions, please not that they refer to a lot of things that have real value to us. I somehow suspect that you would be upset if an employer did not bother to put funds into the account from which your paycheck is drawn, but that money is pretty intangible, too. Just a bunch of electrons in the right places. When you argue that copyright is unenforceable, you are getting close to the truth by admitting that people are thieves who are willing to rip off their fellows if they don't fear getting caught. That would seem to be the case. The real shame of it all is that creative souls, at a time when they should be freed of publishers and leeches who seek to exploit them, are forced into the arms of the enemy by the realization that the population writ large is an even bigger foe. As to derisive tone, well --- Ten years ago, I was much kinder. Too many years and too much of the same old same old == grumpy old man. |
| tuxchick Jul 06, 2010 11:54 AM EDT |
Well said, dino. The more some people get the more they want, and the screwier their rationalizations for taking without paying. It is so very simple: fans/customers should honor whatever terms creative artists, and any creators of anything that fits into digital media, release their work under. If the terms are onerous, walk away. Nobody has the right to just take. |
| dinotrac Jul 06, 2010 11:57 AM EDT |
TC -- Yup. |
| jdixon Jul 06, 2010 11:58 AM EDT |
> You are trying to make the issue be about something that it's not. No, you're disagree about what the issue is. Bob's fairly consistent within his framework, as are you. You're disagreeing about the nature of the matter at hand. If forced to choose, I'd go with Bob's position, simply because the recent extensions to copyright have violated both the letter and the spirit of the Constitutional clause which authorizes such copyrights (Yeah, I know the Supreme Court disagrees with that position. To misstate Abraham Lincoln, as many people as want can call a leg a tail all day long. It doesn't change the fact that a dog has four legs.). As such, IMO, current copyright law has no moral standing. That doesn't mean I'm willing to go to jail over the matter, merely that I don't care if anyone breaks the law or not. And since the current copyright holders are the ones who got us into this situation, I don't care if they suffer from people breaking the law or not. |
| dinotrac Jul 06, 2010 12:00 PM EDT |
jdixon - Copyright has not moral standing, eh? No more than the GPL or your checking account, I suppose. |
| jdixon Jul 06, 2010 12:07 PM EDT |
> No more than the GPL or your checking account, I suppose. Dino, the government hasn't suddenly decided my checking account should be worth 3 times what it was worth. I'm sure if it did, other people would be rather upset. And no, current copyright law in the US (not copyright as such) has no moral standing. Again, IMO. |
| dinotrac Jul 06, 2010 12:12 PM EDT |
jdixon -Quoting: Dino, the government hasn't suddenly decided my checking account should be worth 3 times what it was worth. I'm sure if it did, other people would be rather upset. You must think that's pertinent to something, but I am completely at a loss as to what or why. You were talking about moral standing. What moral standing does a checking acount have that a copyright doesn't? |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 06, 2010 12:15 PM EDT |
JD, > Bob's fairly consistent within his framework, as are you. You're disagreeing about the nature of the matter at hand. As a human being, I fall into exactly the same traps that others do. Even though I can identify "first principles" as being important to understanding, as stated above, I am just as apt (Debian connection there!) to being unable to grasp the logic of the opposition's argument as they are of mine, for exactly the same reason. As an example, Dino and TCs insistence that I'm deliberately changing subjects, while what I see is their repeated non-sequiters and red herrings. It may be as simple as neither being capable of grasping the other's logic. Which would explain a great many of the epic arguments of life, and likely not a few actual wars. |
| jdixon Jul 06, 2010 12:34 PM EDT |
> You must think that's pertinent to something, but I am completely at a loss as to what or why. Somehow I'm not surprised. The government suddenly and arbitrarily decided to lengthen copyright substantially. They could equally well suddenly decide that certain checking accounts were to be worth 3 times their previous value. > What moral standing does a checking acount have that a copyright doesn't? Your the one who equated them, not me. |
| dinotrac Jul 06, 2010 12:40 PM EDT |
Ah.... Got a little mixed up there. So, really, moral standing was just something you threw out without thinking about it, eh? That's ok, because it is no more or less an issue than honoring the GPL or ensuring that money going into your checking account can be withdrawn in a form that allows you to exchange it for goods and services. |
| tuxchick Jul 06, 2010 12:40 PM EDT |
jdixon, just blaming corrupt copyright law doesn't tell the whole story. The GPL and Creative Commons licenses, to give two examples, use the legal power of copyright law to make better copyrights that protect creators, and also end users or customers or whatever you want to call them. Rightsholders are often not the creators under traditional copyrights. That's why I've been trying to emphasize artist and creator rights, and morality rather than legality. It's too simplistic to say "copyrights are evil so it's OK to dishonor them." |
| krisum Jul 06, 2010 12:44 PM EDT |
@Teron > Also, how on earth can something intangible be stolen? As Dino mentions, your idea of intangible is mistaken. Even by your definition, as I mentioned in another thread, it is commonly said that "credit card numbers have been stolen" or "passwords have been stolen" etc. @Bob > It may be as simple as neither being capable of grasping the other's logic. For starters, you have completely failed to explain as to why someone gets to have a "natural right" to "scarce tangible" possessions (and by corollary, no right to other kinds of those). |
| dinotrac Jul 06, 2010 12:45 PM EDT |
TC - Yes, that's true. But jdixon is right, in a sense, to say that copyrights have no moral standing. Same is true of most legal things. Where he goes astray is to presume that there is no moral imperative in honoring the rights of others -- rights that they rely on, a reliance that causes valuable creation to happen. I remain dumbfounded at all of the gymnastics at pretending that creative works themselves have no value in a world where so much time, energy, and money is expended trying to obtain them. You want to talk about moral standing -- how about willingly expending so much as an iota/mustard seed/whatever trivial investment in getting something and then pretending no value is involved? Talk about a bankrupt and immoral position. |
| hkwint Jul 06, 2010 12:50 PM EDT |
gus3: Yes, I tried magnatunes recently. Pretty decent, but not everything I want from / envision for such a service. I'm thinking about creating some mock-up webpage implementing the idea or something, but that's for later. One thing I'd like to note is the ease and precision of copying has increased. In the past copies from radio to casette (I did lots of it when I was young) were kinda low-fi, but nowadays you can copy for the whole world without losing a bit with the same ease. It's interesting principle of "copying" is the same in both cases but the results are different. |
| skelband Jul 06, 2010 1:05 PM EDT |
Well, I have a challenge to tuxchick and dinotrac: You obviously still support the idea of legally mandated copyright. However, for some people on the Internet they don't care about copyright. You perceive that they are a problem, whereas I am less certain. Regardless, what do you propose to fix this situation? I think copyright and the law in general is not the right way to go and I don't think it actually fixes anything broken anyway. But you disagree and that is OK. Debate is good. I think that I am right in assuming that you wish to stop illegal copiers from pursuing their activity and make them pay for what they have copied? How do you do this? Let me make some suggestions: 1) Heavy jail time for offenders as a disincentive to others. Well we have the people that ran the Pirate Bay. That obviously sent out a big message. Well actually, no it didn't as a matter of fact, it made no difference whatsoever. Also, how much jail time is long enough before it is longer than what you get for murder? What if even that doesn't work? People go to jail for life for murder, yet people still commit murder. 2) More copy protection on media. Has this ever worked for more than 24 hours? In any audio, video or game media? 3) Some kind of indirect tax from everyone so they get their money anyway. This has been suggested by a few people. One example is a levy on blank media. It's not entirely fair though is it? I use a lot of DVD-Rs but mainly for backups and sending my media to other people. The VAST majority of people pay for their media using the usual channels of CD and DVD or they go to the cinema. Punishing everyone for the fault of the small minority is never right. Also, it is difficult to be fair to creative artists: how to you divvy it up? I also think a bit of self analysis is in order. Do you object to illegal copying on the grounds that it loses revenue to creative artists or that it is not fair to those that do pay? Emotive language like "freeloaders" and "frikkin' cheap" would suggest the latter rather than the former. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 06, 2010 1:05 PM EDT |
Kr, > For starters, you have completely failed to explain as to why someone gets to have a "natural right" to "scarce tangible" possessions (and by corollary, no right to other kinds of those). This is what I mean by a red herring. I do not doubt that you believe in the concept of private property, otherwise you would not be supporting copyright. Faced by someone who does not support copyright, rather than address copyright, you demand that I re-address the last 10,000 years of social exchange to rationalize something you already agree with. So no, I am not going to spend several years trying to educate you about something you are already perfectly well aware of. Simple argument is a complete waste of time. Neither TC nor Dino, nor anyone else pro-copyright, is going to have their minds changed. Those who have concluded the opposite will not be swayed either, since both sides have, in fact, "heard it all before". Dino, >Talk about a bankrupt and immoral position. Only because you disagree with what you THINK that position is, not the what the position actually is. |
| skelband Jul 06, 2010 1:15 PM EDT |
dinotrac - Quoting:I remain dumbfounded at all of the gymnastics at pretending that creative works themselves have no value in a world where so much time, energy, and money is expended trying to obtain them. Bob (and I) do not view creative works as valueless. Where on earth did you get that idea? People purchase them because they have value. I buy CDs and DVDs because they have value to me, not because of anything to do with copyright. And I have a lot of CDs and DVDs. When I go into HMV and browse around, issue of copyright and law do not enter into the equation at all. I buy something because it is worth the price tag and I want it. That is all. Copyright law is not there for people like us. It is for those that break the law to either deter them or punish them after the fact. Ultimately, a law that is applied to someone is a failed law because it did not prevent the breach. It's like speed cameras that make lots of money. Money is nice, but it has utterly failed to slow down drivers. |
| jdixon Jul 06, 2010 1:20 PM EDT |
> That's why I've been trying to emphasize artist and creator rights, and morality rather than legality. Which, as you note, may have little to do with copyright, and which no one here seems to disagree about. > It's too simplistic to say "copyrights are evil so it's OK to dishonor them." Simplistic, yes. But given that I (and most others individuals) have no ability to change the current legal environment, that's the only option available. People tried to fight the battle in the legislature. They lost. They tried to fight the battle in court. They lost. When legal methods are exhausted, people use the ones that are left. > So, really, moral standing was just something you threw out without thinking about it, eh? I seldom throw things out without thinking about them, Dino. You should know that by now. I've thought about this for a long time. >Where he goes astray is to presume that there is no moral imperative in honoring the rights of others -- rights that they rely on, a reliance that causes valuable creation to happen. And where have I done that, Dino? I've made an argument against a specific law in it's current form. That's all. I've not even advocated breaking it. I simply don't care if people do or who suffers as a result. > I remain dumbfounded at all of the gymnastics at pretending that creative works themselves have no value in a world where so much time, energy, and money is expended trying to obtain them. Again, an argument I've never made. |
| dinotrac Jul 06, 2010 2:03 PM EDT |
Bob - Read. |
| dinotrac Jul 06, 2010 2:08 PM EDT |
>The real potential losers are the big media conglomerates. You really do live in your own world, don't you? Those are the people making money off creative works. Not as much as they'd like, and that bothers me not at all. What bothers me is a world full of leeches who make it impossible to make money without being ripped off by big media conglomerates, leeches who don't give a rat's hindquarters for artists and creator And worse -- put together meat-headed rationalizations as to why their leeching is somehow morally acceptable. Fine, fine folks. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 06, 2010 2:16 PM EDT |
Dino, > Read. I do. So do you. We simply do not see the same meanings in the same words. |
| skelband Jul 06, 2010 2:23 PM EDT |
Quoting:Those are the people making money off creative works. Not as much as they'd like, and that bothers me not at all. I was talking about who stood to lose from the revolution in media distribution on the Internet in that paragraph. I thought I made that pretty clear. If they are the people making money, then they have the most to lose from changes in media delivery channels, surely. If you're not making much money, then you don't have much to lose, right? |
| dinotrac Jul 06, 2010 2:28 PM EDT |
jdixon -Quoting: And where have I done that, Dino? I've made an argument against a specific law in it's current form. That's all. I've not even advocated breaking it. I simply don't care if people do or who suffers as a result. Unintentionally, perhaps. The only moral imperative in any law is to obey it as a matter of legal authority. The only moral standing is the legitimacy of the body that passes and enforces the law. When you talk about having not moral standing, I'm left with two choices: 1. You don't believe that the government has any moral standing to make law, or 2. Something relating to and around the law, but apart from the law, creates or fails to create a moral force. In that regard, the only force I can see in copyright that might create a moral force is that people who invest their time and energy to create something good and valuable enough that you would want to take if for yourself might deserve some compensation for their trouble. If that's the case, my characterization of your position would seem spot on. |
| dinotrac Jul 06, 2010 2:31 PM EDT |
Quoting: If you're not making much money, then you don't have much to lose, right? Wrong question. The right question is whether you could make much money if people paid for what your work is worth. You might not be making much money now because people are ripping you off left and right. That's the position in which creative souls find themselves if they don't have benefit of a publisher/middleman. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 06, 2010 2:41 PM EDT |
Dino, > The only moral imperative in any law is to obey it as a matter of legal authority. You're ignoring the fact that morality and legality are entirely different things. Those laws which codify what people do anyway, such as laws against murder, robbery, rape, etc, people generally follow. Those laws which attempt to impose behaviors people do not already follow, like arbitrary speed limits, drug prohibition, etc, people generally only follow when they think they will get caught. Was it moral to violate the Fugitive Slave Act, refusing to return human beings to bondage? Hell yes! Is it moral to violate drug prohibitions to help a person who is sick or in pain? Hell yes! I could go on, but why? > That's the position in which creative souls find themselves if they don't have benefit of a publisher/middleman. And many times if they do, as well. Copyright is not a panacea. It is simply one mechanism, which has been abused out of recognition by the vested interests who benefit the most from it. There are other mechanisms. |
| skelband Jul 06, 2010 2:46 PM EDT |
dinotrac - Quoting:Wrong question. Well I was answering your specific point about my specific comment. If you want to ask a different question, then that is your prerogative. Middlemen exist to perform a valuable function, usually around marketing and delivery. They provide a valuable service to people who cannot or do not wish to market or deliver their material. They don't usually make much of a difference on illegal copying. Yes, they may make a big song and dance about pursuing people for illegal copying, but it has made little real difference on the ground. My point was that since the Internet became more prevalent, creative artists have other options. The middleman service has less value because it is easier for people to do their own thing. It is still a valuable service to some however. The separate fact that they also have dominant economic power enables them to make a ton of money while creative artists whom they purport to serve do not. Since there are now other options, the major studios are finding that they have less of a commanding bargaining position. This is good for creative artists as they have a stronger position and this will continue to change the game as time goes on, including the changing form of the delivery itself. Companies like Netflix, Amazon, Apple (in the short term) and Google (YouTube) will be the big players in the future. The studios will become less and less relevant since they are resisting change in the direct delivery area. How this revolution will affect illegal copying, the relevance of copyright and remuneration to creative artists is less clear than most people realise. |
| dinotrac Jul 06, 2010 2:47 PM EDT |
Bob - No Bob, I'm rather explicitly saying that there is nothing about any law that is implicitly moral. The only morality to be found is the duty to obey the law, not the law itself. Violating the Fugitive Slave Act did nothing to alter that fact. People faced with conflicting moral imperatives are forced to choose. With regard to copyright, the only moral imperative involved other than the basic imperative to obey the law is respect for those who create the things (intangible as you may think they are) that we wish to have. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 06, 2010 2:49 PM EDT |
> The only morality to be found is the duty to obey the law, not the law itself. This is what I mean about using words that the other person simply cannot understand. There is NO MORALITY in obeying a bad law. Only cowardice. |
| dinotrac Jul 06, 2010 3:02 PM EDT |
>There is NO MORALITY in obeying a bad law. Only cowardice. We must mean different things when we say morality. |
| gus3 Jul 06, 2010 3:03 PM EDT |
Quoting:It is so very simple: fans/customers should honor whatever terms creative artists, and any creators of anything that fits into digital media, release their work under.Ah, there's the rub: Some people distribute their works under comparatively liberal terms. I do; PJ at Groklaw does; Cory Doctorow does. And for that, Harlan Ellison calls us "a$$holes": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE (very strong language warning) Now, in fairness to Mr. Ellison, he has been screwed several times by publishers and studios, and he has made them all regret doing so. But who the h-e-double-hockey-sticks is he, to dictate to me the terms under which I must publish my own work? |
| azerthoth Jul 06, 2010 3:11 PM EDT |
Tossing the word morality around is tricky to start with, morals themselves being nothing more than opinions codified as doctrine. Even that though varies depending on country, region, religion, financial state, personal beliefs that are outside the existing codified 'moral truths'. So please, when you think of using the word 'moral' or it's permutations, substitute 'opinion' which is truer and worth every penny that you pay for either. |
| gus3 Jul 06, 2010 3:18 PM EDT |
Quoting:The only morality to be found is the duty to obey the lawThat argument has been used to justify all kinds of immorality throughout history. The most accessible examples would immediately validate Godwin's Law, once again. |
| skelband Jul 06, 2010 3:19 PM EDT |
dinotrac - Quoting:We must mean different things when we say morality. Well here's my take. Morality is just a very personal view on what is right and what is wrong. It is different from one person to the next and is entirely subjective and often logically indefensible. In an ideal world, the Law encapsulates the prevailing morality of the majority of people. This means that some people will disagree with some laws as it contradicts their personal morality. Problem is, the prevailing morality in any society changes over time whereas laws are slow to keep up. The slavery example is actually a very good one in this regard. US southerners in particularly were convinced that not only was slavery right and proper, God did too. Now how on earth do you justify that position against the doctrine of the Christian religion? Many people did. Most of us look back and wonder what on earth they were thinking. Perhaps in the future, many people will look back and wonder at our attitudes to drugs, sexual liberty, our dusky skinned cousins in the far east and ... copyright and judge us to be savages in our prejudiced and backward beliefs. |
| dinotrac Jul 06, 2010 3:40 PM EDT |
Skelband - I think your view is very common, possibly prevalent. Trouble is, a purely personal morality has no practical meaning. Which, I suppose, is why we have laws. |
| tuxchick Jul 06, 2010 3:50 PM EDT |
gus3, I think Mr. Ellison is talking about writers who are naive, not making a conscious choice to do a freebie. I encounter this all the time with other writers, and I seem to spend a fair bit of time giving advice. Like "Don't give it away, foo and fee are getting paid for the same thing, so you should too." I even snoop and find out how much if I can. Though maybe he does think writers who give it away for any reason are a-holes. :) |
| tuxchick Jul 06, 2010 4:06 PM EDT |
One interesting result from this discussion- I find myself taking DRM technologies more seriously, as it seems the freeloader crowd are large, determined, and unrepentant. |
| skelband Jul 06, 2010 4:06 PM EDT |
dinotrac -Quoting:Trouble is, a purely personal morality has no practical meaning. What other kind of morality is there? A single person's morality can not be used to determine laws or used to judge whether laws are good or bad. The problem with a lot of people when they talk about morality, is that they think of it as an immutable thing underpinned by rules and logic. The truth is very different. Take drugs for example. Should weed be legal or illegal? The argument for the ban revolves around being led onto stronger drugs and others think that it causes psychosis in some people. The argument for the repeal of the ban is that compared to other perfectly ordinary legal activities, it is far safer so what is the big deal? Both of these viewpoints may be true or false, but the reason that it is illegal is that a lot of people, in their gut, think taking drugs (any drugs) is "bad". They just know it, balls to bones. Want another example? In the UK, it is now illegal to own cartoon images of underage sex. That includes a lot of previous OK manga. Why? Because lots of people are repulsed by the concept and they just know it is "bad", in their gut. If asked to justify it, they will find all sorts of strange and weird arguments or resort to religious dogma. Another? I talked about homosexuality within the family context some time back: I forget the particular subject matter. My (elderly) father-in-law made some rather disparaging remarks about "queers" and locking them all up or somesuch. He believes in his gut that his opinion is correct and justifiable and a lot of old laws on homosexuality were based on his kind of moral judgments. Morality changes and laws should as well. If you believe, like you say, that my view on copyright is becoming the prevailing view, then the law should change otherwise it is insupportable. |
| dinotrac Jul 06, 2010 4:13 PM EDT |
skelband - Not that familiar with the way things are in the UK, but, in the US, the Constitution has protections specifically designed to prevent prevailing views from trampling individual freedoms. |
| skelband Jul 06, 2010 4:16 PM EDT |
tuxchick - Quoting:I encounter this all the time with other writers, and I seem to spend a fair bit of time giving advice. Like "Don't give it away, foo and fee are getting paid for the same thing, so you should too." Wow, my first reaction would be "good for you for being so selfless." Quoting:One interesting result from this discussion- I find myself taking DRM technologies more seriously, as it seems the freeloader crowd are large, determined, and unrepentant. DRM is a nice idea in principle, but the only people it punishes are legitimate users. As soon as any game or video or audio is release with DRM, it is quickly defeated by the "freeloaders". But me with my properly purchased DVD have to brush with the law to play it on my Linux box because of the DRM. As soon as you put DRM on things it is like shouting "DEFEAT ME IF YOU CAN" at the top of your voice. The irony is that the "freeloaders" that break the DRM provisions gain entertainment from the task. Again you make the mistake of characterising the "freeloaders" as a large crowd. In the grand scheme of things, they are a very small number of people. |
| tuxchick Jul 06, 2010 4:19 PM EDT |
Tapdance away, skelband, your position is clear. |
| skelband Jul 06, 2010 4:22 PM EDT |
dinotrac - Quoting:Not that familiar with the way things are in the UK, but, in the US, the Constitution has protections specifically designed to prevent prevailing views from trampling individual freedoms. I guess these are the same provisions used to protect people from the evils of copyright and copyright law. Weren't they used to uphold the principles of free speech against attempts to kill parody and fair use? Your constitution is a small set of very useful basic rules. We could really do with those in the UK as well. There are some things that are pretty eternal in terms of what lies at the core of the prevailing morality and they come from some very basic instincts. Murder, torture rape, fraud (from our sense of fair play) are pretty much solid although governments will kill and torture people given the proper provocation. Guantanamo Bay anyone? If you look under the surface though, people are not averse to lying through their teeth if it suits them, so we are far from perfect individuals. |
| bigg Jul 06, 2010 4:26 PM EDT |
> it seems the freeloader crowd are large, determined, and unrepentant. And it seems that you still cannot distinguish between questioning the system and arguing for illegal file sharing. Completely different issues. Obviously because you are arguing for imposing restrictions on the use of copyrighted material, you should resign your position as editor and stop publishing books related to FOSS. Obviously you are not a believer in FOSS. Obviously you are on Microsoft's payroll. It serves no purpose at all to keep throwing this irrelevant and incorrect claim into the discussion. I believe that the system of US intellectual property rights is one of the most ignorant systems ever designed. It's exactly what you would expect to see if you were to allow a committee of lawyers to put it together. It's horrible. Yet I have never downloaded music illegally and have no desire to do so. |
| dinotrac Jul 06, 2010 4:42 PM EDT |
Quoting: Weren't they used to uphold the principles of free speech against attempts to kill parody and fair use? Yep, indeedy. Fair use is now codified in the American copyright statute, but it is derived from a combination of historical and Constitutional protections. I'm just glad that the Supreme Court still takes free speech (somewhat) seriously. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 06, 2010 4:53 PM EDT |
TC, > I find myself taking DRM technologies more seriously, as it seems the freeloader crowd are large, determined, and unrepentant. If I recall correctly, Caitlyn had exactly the same reaction when she was put in a position of trying to justify her support of copyright, while at the same time thinking casual (as opposed to systematic, for profit, etc) file sharing was OK. Rather than abandon the obsolete mechanism in the face of rapid social change, she retrenched into full copyright defense mode and altered her personal behavior to fit. The same way you have decided to reexamine DRM, which seemed to be not such a good thing before now. I can respect that. I wonder how you feel to know you're a reactionary conservative? |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 06, 2010 4:54 PM EDT |
Dino, > in the US, the Constitution has protections specifically designed to prevent prevailing views from trampling individual freedoms. Hahahahahaha! A comedian! |
| dinotrac Jul 06, 2010 4:59 PM EDT |
Bob - I said the Constitution has 'em. I didn't say anybody paid attention! |
| TxtEdMacs Jul 06, 2010 5:17 PM EDT |
dino,Quoting:I sued a famous quote[*] from Shakespeare's Othello[**] -- [...][underscore inserted] Are ever going to cease being a hard @ss lawyer? Just asking ... YBT P.S. For a new thread, too much already. * From a Famous Author ** And from a Renown Play |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 06, 2010 5:20 PM EDT |
> I said the Constitution has 'em. I didn't say anybody paid attention! I do appreciate opportunities to be in complete agreement. Put down that book! It has too many pages! Edit: Did you catch the YouTube where some guy reads the _disclaimer_ that is being printed in copies of the US Constitution now? A disclaimer! How twisted can the world get? |
| dinotrac Jul 06, 2010 5:26 PM EDT |
>How twisted can the world get? Seriously, you have to ask? |
| gus3 Jul 06, 2010 5:42 PM EDT |
Quoting:>How twisted can the world get?But in case you do: Once every ~24 hours is the current rate. |
| azerthoth Jul 06, 2010 6:02 PM EDT |
@ Bob wilder publishing, I think my disclaimer would be 'reading these documents may be hazardous to your congressman's job and/or your blood pressure' |
| jdixon Jul 06, 2010 6:09 PM EDT |
> When you talk about having not moral standing, I'm left with two choices: > 1. You don't believe that the government has any moral standing to make law, or Dino, I've stated my opinion plainly enough. In passing the current copyright law, Congress acted outside of it's authority, as defined in the Constitution. As such, the law has no moral standing, and it's not immoral to break the law. You can attempt to define terms, divine intent, or whatever all day long for as many days as you wish, and have as much fun with it as you want. It won't change either my opinion or anything about the matter. You may prefer to replace the phrase "has term no moral standing" with "is illegitimate" if that's more to your liking. I simply prefer the former. > ...the only force I can see in copyright that might create a moral force is that people who invest their time and energy to create something good and valuable enough that you would want to take if for yourself might deserve some compensation for their trouble. Again, I've never stated that's not the case. Those who sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind. Disney and company have sown the wind. It's a shame many others are caught in the whirlwind, but that's always the case. > No Bob, I'm rather explicitly saying that there is nothing about any law that is implicitly moral. The only morality to be found is the duty to obey the law, not the law itself. Even ignoring those laws which are plainly stated to be moral (the 10 commandments, for example), that's a point we'll never agree on Dino. Laws should always have either a moral on consensus basis. Anything else results in widespread breaking of the law and undermines the legitimacy of law itself, to the point where eventually you can have a complete breakdown of society (at one time, our legislatures understood this). There is also no moral duty to obey a non-moral law. |
| skelband Jul 06, 2010 6:21 PM EDT |
Quoting:Anything else results in widespread breaking of the law and undermines the legitimacy of law itself Indeed. The irony is that anyone that claims that illegal copying of copyrighted material is widespread and commonplace, is in essence arguing that copyright law is unsupported and therefore should be repealed for this very reason. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 06, 2010 6:28 PM EDT |
> is in essence arguing that copyright law is unsupported and therefore should be repealed for this very reason. Darn, I know I wrote this same thing somewhere in the last 48 hours, I just can't find it. |
| gus3 Jul 06, 2010 6:38 PM EDT |
You've written a lot in the last 48 hours, Bob... |
| azerthoth Jul 06, 2010 7:03 PM EDT |
Article 1 Section 8, US Constitution (i.e. directly applicable on to discussion in reference to U.S.)Quoting:To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries This is not something that gets repealed, it is enumerated as one of the direct powers of congress. Even congress can not overturn this directly. It requires a constitutional amendment, or in layman terms, an order of magnitude more difficult than 'an act of congress'. What they can do though, and odds are they never will, is reduce that timeframe. There may be an avenue available though now that I reread that again. One could likely make the argument that the current rules do not "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" and try and get SCOTUS to so rule. Fat chance there too. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 06, 2010 7:40 PM EDT |
Az, > is reduce that timeframe. Another thing I know I've said before, is that the present problems we see due to the extremity to which copyright/patent has been taken, only reveals the problems that have always existed to a lesser extent. If copyright were of truly limited duration, and patent of limited scope, it would be far harder to argue against them. I still would, but that's just me. |
| tuxchick Jul 06, 2010 8:16 PM EDT |
bigg,Quoting: > it seems the freeloader crowd are large, determined, and unrepentant. Bigg, I have no idea where you get these notions. How does advocating for respecting creator's rights and terms of use make me not a believer in FOSS? FOSS is all about copyrights, as I said way back at the very beginning of my editorial. I most certainly do distinguish between questioning the system and arguing for illegal file sharing. Ripping off artists and creators doesn't do a thing to challenge or fix the current system. Ripping off artists and creators is the current system. I also have expended many words in favor of fans/users/customers rights. How you spin that as being a pro-Microsoft unbeliever has me wondering if you're mixing up my comments with someone else's. |
| azerthoth Jul 06, 2010 8:39 PM EDT |
@bob, you'd kick if it were reduced to an hour and a half, but we love you anyway :) |
| skelband Jul 06, 2010 9:07 PM EDT |
Quoting:Ripping off artists and creators doesn't do a thing to challenge or fix the current system. But there you go again. Who is suggesting this? The summary of your last post goes along the lines of: 1) Bigg: I disagree; what are you talking about? 2) Freeloaders are all frikkin' turds. It rather does seem as through you have a particularly vitriolic (I do like that word) agenda which has nothing to do with copyright law. You just hate frikkin' freeloaders. |
| jdixon Jul 06, 2010 9:31 PM EDT |
> One could likely make the argument that the current rules do not "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" and try and get SCOTUS to so rule. Fat chance there too. That's been tried, though the primary focus was (and should have been) the limited time section. Lifetime plus 50 years is not really a limited time by most people's standards. Except in the same sense that infinity minus 1 is. As I noted, the legal methods of protest have been exhausted. People are using what they have left. |
| dinotrac Jul 06, 2010 10:33 PM EDT |
>Who is suggesting this? Seriously, you're asking that question? |
| Teron Jul 07, 2010 2:37 AM EDT |
dinotrac:
>>Who is suggesting this? >Seriously, you're asking that question? Yes. He is asking that question because neither Bob or skelband have been suggesting that this should be done. jdixon and I advocate it as a last resort because all legal avenues have, so far, failed. Pirate parties might be able to change this, and you can be d@mn certain where my vote's going next election. That I believe copyright to be utterly useless (and patents outright harmful) is a matter completely separate from respecting the artists: I do give artists my money whenever they offer me value in a convenient way: Most gigs of bands I like in Helsinki I go to, and I buy physical CDs in addition to downloading stuff. Ebooks hold no value for me, hence I buy deadtree books. 99% of all games I own are legal. Despite all this, I think the law should be repealed, because it simply doesn't work. It tries to artificially scarcify ideas, and keep them intensely bound to specific pieces of physical media which is completely contrary to their nature. I'm 100% against the increasing Orwellization of western society, and keeping copyright law advances that because big money wants it to be enforceable. |
| dinotrac Jul 07, 2010 8:37 AM EDT |
>Congress acted outside of it's authority If that's your basis for deciding the moral authority of copyright, then I can't take anything you say on the topic of moral authority seriously. The Constitution grants Congress broad authority to establish and regulate copyrights. I can't imagine a term of years falling outside of that authority. If you want to rail against the constitutionality of copyright laws, better to go after the provisions in the DMCA that prohibit bypassing or reverse-engineering technical copy protection schemes. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 07, 2010 9:00 AM EDT |
> The Constitution grants Congress broad authority to establish and regulate copyrights. Yep. Just another failure of merchantilism. |
| jdixon Jul 07, 2010 9:31 AM EDT |
> If that's your basis for deciding the moral authority of copyright, then I can't take anything you say on the topic of moral authority seriously. Did I give the impression that I expected you to? > I can't imagine a term of years falling outside of that authority. You obviously have a far different understanding of the term "limited time" than I do. > better to go after the provisions in the DMCA Why are you assuming I haven't? But this discussion didn't concern the DMCA. > jdixon and I advocate it Actually, what I've said is that I don't support the law and I don't care if anyone else breaks it or not. That's not quite the same thing as advocating that people break it. |
| mrider Jul 07, 2010 11:08 AM EDT |
It's somewhat "ironic" (in the current incorrect use of the word) to find the following article on Slashdot while reading this thread. Link: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/07/06/211213/AU-Band-Men-At... The basic gist of if for those that won't follow the link: Apparently the group Men At Work has been ordered to pay royalties for an instrumental riff in their song 'Down Under'. It seems that the riff is derivative of a well-known children's song 'Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree'. Written in 1934. |
| krisum Jul 09, 2010 1:37 AM EDT |
@BobQuoting: Faced by someone who does not support copyright, rather than address copyright, you demand that I re-address the last 10,000 years of social exchange to rationalize something you already agree with.Probably you need to pay more attention. I ask you to rationalize how you come up with the idea that "someone gets to have a "natural right" to "scarce tangible" possessions (*and by corollary, no right to other kinds of those*)". You created an artificial differentiation between "scarce tangible" and other kinds of possessions which you have so far not even defined properly, let alone rationalize why one has a natural right to those but not to others. Quoting: So no, I am not going to spend several years trying to educate you about something you are already perfectly well aware of.No, the reasons I agree with it are completely different from your reasons (which btw, seem completely arbitrary to me so far). |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 09, 2010 8:03 AM EDT |
Krisum, > You created an artificial differentiation between "scarce tangible" and other kinds of possessions If you care to go back and look, I have not used "tangible" or "intangible". It's been used many times referring _to_ what people think is my argument, but that's all. Scarcity, however, is very much central to the issue. Something that is not scarce, like "air", is not an economic good. Compressed air, filtered air, liquid air, etc, can be priced because they are not scarce. But what is being sold is not the air itself but the service of liquification, filtering, compressing, etc. I believe that creativity is the most scarce resource of all, and deserves every reward and remuneration that the creator can finagle for themselves. Don't let the assertions that I want "starving artists" to distract you. An idea is not scarce. A copy does not deprive he who possesses the original of the original, any more than a photograph deprives a person of their soul. This is why "intellectual" property requires statutes to create and enforce it. If you are interested, there are many excellent dissertations by people far better than I at educating: A Book that Changes Everything, Jeff Tucker http://mises.org/daily/3298 Against Intellectual Monopoly, Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.h... Against Intellectual Property, Stephan Kinsella http://www.scribd.com/doc/7511095/Against-Intellectual-Prope... > (which btw, seem completely arbitrary to me so far) Then here's your opportunity. The first one above is quite short and to the point, if you're actually interested in the subject. |
| jacog Jul 09, 2010 8:36 AM EDT |
Yikes... monster thread here. My 2c: When you use a piece of GPL software, you basically agree to the terms of that license. Not because a court of law will beat you on the head if you do not comply, but because the person who made the software wished it so. Same goes for music and movies. The makers of "Sita Sings The Blues*" wants you to copy it and give it to all your friends, but the makers of "Transformers 2" do not (perhaps a good thing). I too really would prefer it if all media came unrestricted, and it's probably worth working to convince the media makers that it should be - for many of the above-stated reasons, but... ...it all comes down to respect. Respect the wishes of those whose efforts went into creating something in how they want it to be distributed (or not distributed). If you don't agree to the terms of use of something, then don't use it. * And yes, I know that Nina Paley is a very strong "Copying is not stealing" advocate. |
| hkwint Jul 09, 2010 4:30 PM EDT |
Quoting:I do not doubt that you believe in the concept of private property, otherwise you would not be supporting copyright. Sigh Bob, you didn't learn at all? Sounds like you understood nothing of what I tried to say, and have a binary mind. Someone is for or against something. Sad to have to say, but you sound like your own previous administration. The whole sentence quoted is your assumption. Nowhere did I say I was supporting the current copyright system. The same goes for the patent system. Neither do I believe in 'private property' on its own, because it doesn't exist / is meaningless outside human society. Just like law, it's a social structure humans invented. Most people don't believe or support social structures, instead they try to live with them. What I did say however, is those who have something that becomes less scarce and therefore less valuable have a right to be compensated - in cases where society thinks so. Like explained, in some cases society agreed someone shouldn't be compensated, like if someone's gold becomes less scarce and therefore less valuable. Most of the society agrees, if the central bank makes paper money less scarce, this shouldn't happen, and some consider it theft (even if nothing was taken away). Then, when talking about copyright, ideally it would be a social structure to compensate the creator of information for the information becoming less scarce, limited to the cases where the creator wants compensation. Such a structure could work without law or state. However, it's certainly not going to work, if those who don't have a direct contract with the creator can multiply it without being liable / required to compensate the creator. |
| hkwint Jul 09, 2010 4:57 PM EDT |
Bob: See Chapter 3, "How competition works":Quoting:Do the innovators lose because of this? Probably... ...everybody else gains a lot more than the innovators loose. Good economic laws... are not designed to make a few people super wealthy, but to make the average customer better of" What this says: "You can basically screw creators as long as anyone else gains more than the creator looses". That's exactly how Pirate Bay works. Which, exactly like I said, is a description of a society. It also says: "Initial ideas of an idea are owned by the innovators" Which is totally ridiculous, given the pledge of the book against "owning ideas". This is where the problem is, it's about Mozart / Beethoven 'owning' the first manuscripts and such. It's discussing today's worlds in which copying information is cheaper than breathing, and using arguments from a very different 18/19th century where copying was more expensive and required more efforts. The same goes for inventions, technical drawings and what have you. And, of course, again there's the steam engine... The book doesn't think for a moment about the effort needed to make a copy in 1750-1850 and nowadays, which drastically decreased. If a certain social behaviour is good for whole society when copying is expensive, doesn't mean it still is when copying almost became gratis. Why doesn't the book mention costs of copying a bit in 1950 and 2000? Why doesn't the book mention the invention of 5-axis CNC milling machines? Why doesn't it compare the price of copying a book in the time of the Monks / PirateBay? And so on. It's like using "horse and carriage behaviour in the 18/19th century" as arguments in a debate about the "effect of traffic lights on Ferrari's": bound to fail and produce useless gibberish. If you are interested, there are many excellent dissertations by people far better than I at educating: http://userweb.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD10x... 2nd / 3d paragraph. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 09, 2010 6:08 PM EDT |
Hk, > Sigh Bob, you didn't learn at all? Apparently not, because (seriously) what you wrote makes no sense to me. You keep using words like "society", so look around and see what people are doing. Society is more than just laws, and those laws which enact what society does are laws that get followed. > What I did say however, is those who have something that becomes less scarce and therefore less valuable have a right to be compensated - in cases where society thinks so. When you get to interview this "society", please let me and everyone else know what they say. > Most of the society agrees, if the central bank makes paper money less scarce, this shouldn't happen, and some consider it theft (even if nothing was taken away). All you're doing is demonstrating more abuse of monopoly power, which is exactly what I see happening with the monopoly grants of copyright. Remove "legal tender" laws, and it doesn't matter how much they print. That's just removing the monopoly which supports the abuse, exactly like repealing copyright. > Then, when talking about copyright, ideally it would be a social structure to compensate the creator of information for the information becoming less scarce, limited to the cases where the creator wants compensation. I am all for creators getting every bit of remuneration, or whatever else they want, in compensation for their works. So we're in complete agreement: Monopoly is bad, repeal it. > "You can basically screw creators as long as anyone else gains more than the creator looses". No. What is says is, that without the monopoly grants of copyright, it's very likely that there won't be the monopoly profits that copyright presently supports. Removing the monopoly grants will always have losers, exactly the way slave owners were "impoverished" by the elimination of slavery. Yet agriculture methods changed, and people figured out ways to do even better without slave labor than they had while the monopoly grants existed. Yes, I'm equating copyright to slavery. Both are statutes that say that what I have is not mine. > Why doesn't the book mention the invention of 5-axis CNC milling machines? Likely because it's arguing principle, not utility. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 09, 2010 6:15 PM EDT |
Hk, very interesting paper you linked to. If I may, paragraph 5, > My reason is very simple: radical novelties are so disturbing that they tend to be suppressed or ignored, to the extent that even the possibility of their existence in general is more often denied than admitted. Exactly the way the elimination of copyright, as an answer to the widespread violation of copyright, tends to be suppressed or ignored, especially in the "mainstream" media where such a radical (return to the root) idea would not entertained longer than to be dismissed. I deeply appreciate the editors of LXer who have allowed this subject to get throughly thrashed out (again). |
| gus3 Jul 09, 2010 7:07 PM EDT |
Quoting:I deeply appreciate the editors of LXer who have allowed this subject to get throughly thrashed out (again).Except that the LRU algorithm keeps pushing it to the top. It never gets swapped out. (C'mon, people, let's have a little geek humor here.) |
| hkwint Jul 09, 2010 7:34 PM EDT |
Elimination of copyright is not radical at all, since such a world existed before. I never saw people claiming 'abortion of something which didn't exist before' is radical, such a thing doesn't make sense. Copying megabytes of info per second however, that is radical. It diminishes the scarcity of information, up to a level where 1930's Austrian thinkers don't apply. They never contemplated scanning every document on earth and making it available for free to the whole world population, even if the creator doesn't approve. Utility - btw - is what makes it less and less rewarding to create scarce / wanted information. Discussing economics while only speaking about 'principle' is useless. We don't live between principles, we live in a society. Principles are useless today if they only apply to 18th century society. The whole book is full of historic stuff which doesn't apply in today's world anymore, and therefore, is pretty useless. When you care so much about principles, start reasoning from today's society. Because the book doesn't make any sense in today's world. And I don't have to interview society BTW, that's what we have democracy for. You can vote for The Pirate Party, or start your own party. Let me know if Mises has a perspective which takes the new millennium into consideration and stops ruminating the non-applying useless 18th century trivia. Until then, I'm pretty much done with the topic. Because, with all due respect, I'm pretty interested in the principels of / what the mentioned bunch thinks (and it seems so are you), but if it doesn't apply to today's society, it's a waste of my time. ed: OK, I kept up with 42 pages of the Kinsella stuff, but it's flawed to such a degree I don't even fancy pointing out all that's wrong about it. Most of it is because the many false assumptions made, about property, scarcity and such. Garbage in is garbage out, even with lots of fancy reasoning. I'm done with it for the next three months. ed2: removed emotional stuff, sorry 'bout that. |
| chalbersma Jul 09, 2010 9:12 PM EDT |
still guys? Really. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 10, 2010 6:40 PM EDT |
Hk, > Elimination of copyright is not radical at all Rather than push one way or the other to "reform" copyright, to try to make it work better for me, or someone else to get it to work better for them, I examine the "root" of the issue, the existence of copyright itself. Thus, "radical" by definition. It's also why the mathematical symbol for taking the "root" of a number is called a "radical". > Copying megabytes of info per second however, that is radical. The word you want is "revolutionary", not radical. > It diminishes the scarcity of information, up to a level where 1930's Austrian thinkers don't apply. Non sequiter. Ideas have never been scarce, which is why copyright had to be created in the first place: to enforce an artificial scarcity, justified by allowing the artist to charge monopoly prices "for a limited time" for something that is not by itself scarce. The same principles apply now that applied in the 1930s and before. For example, the Wright Brothers so retarded American aircraft development with their patents that when the US entered WW1, they had to buy their aircraft from the French. > And I don't have to interview society BTW, that's what we have democracy for. So the fact that copyright violation is so wide spread and casual means that you agree to abide the will society, that copyright is to be abolished? I'm being very serious. If you are so wedded to the idea of democracy, then look around you and see what is going on. "Society" has spoken, loud and clear. For some reason, I get the feeling you like democracy because you think it will go your way. Mob rule sucks now, it has always sucked. But then, so does dictatorship. That's why I choose voluntary interaction. > OK, I kept up with 42 pages of the Kinsella stuff, but it's flawed to such a degree I don't even fancy pointing out all that's wrong about it. Which directly confirms my earlier citation, that because you do not share some measure of first principles, what is obvious logic to him is complete gibberish to you. Can you comprehend now how what I see you write is just as much "garbage in garbage out", "false assumptions" and meaningless "fancy reasoning"? I don't think you can, because you are convinced you're being perfectly clear. For that matter, I don't think I can make that leap either, which is why I keep trying to explain these principles to people who really could not care less. |
| skelband Jul 13, 2010 1:43 PM EDT |
I thought this thread had died a death so I have not looked for a while. I will only make a final comment on the subject and then I will be silent. Everyone knows the laws that are bad. They are the ones that are most flouted and have the most dubious reasons for existing. I will list some here: Copyright for reasons mentioned often above. Pornography, not pictures of abuse, just of sex: there is nothing wrong with sex per se, so why are pictures so bad? Alcohol for teenagers I'm going out on another limb here to say that I think youngsters should be properly educated about alcoholic beverages like in France instead of it being this mysterious substance to be abused and experimented with in secret by kids. Prohibition doesn't increase safety, just abuse. Adults who abuse alcohol do (in the main) because of the attitudes they accumulated as children and from likewise media messages. Draconian Terrorist laws. Police powers to just stop people for no justifiable reason other than somewhere, someone was bombed at sometime in the past. In the UK, we didn't need it during the world wars or during the Northern Ireland troubles. What we need is trust, not laws. And there are so many others. The above laws are widely broken/abused because there is no sane justification for their existence. They assume that people are stupid and because a very small minority of people are, we must all be treated the same. We see the same justifications and attitudes: "We need copyright laws because most people are crooks and they would copy music rather than buying it so no-one would make any money and the sky would fall down." "We need terrorist laws because any one of you could be a terrorist, so we must assume you all are" "You are all perverts because you want to look at pornography. I am a religious person and my priests say it is bad, therefore it must be against the law for everyone." "All teenagers are stupid and their parents are incapable of educating their children, so we must have laws on alcohol consumption" See some patterns emerging? Before long, we will not be trusted to drive cars, ski, climb rocks, have sex, grow our own food and a host of other things that we take for granted now. Like I said in a previous time, the vast, vast, VAST majority of people are decent, kind people. However, you only hear about the jerks. You may or may not agree with me, but that is what I think. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!