Copyright is an infringement of every human's natural right to copy.

It is an artificial right granted to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts" (and even though it's highly dubious that it does so in actuality). It is only just that (so long as copyright exists - hurrah for the pirate parties of the world!), the costs of enforcing copyright should fall on the copyright holder - why should the oppressed pay for their own oppression? As technology progresses, those costs might increase. Trying to get YouTube/Google to do the work of policing others' copyrights is just an attempt at shifting the enforcement burden to third parties.

"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped ,or turned back, for their private benefit." - Heinlein.

Spum, if you take a read of the section of the US Copyright Act that Google relies on (512(c)) you will find that the safe harbor is only available if the potential infringer essentially knows or should have known that infringing activity was taking place on their service.

While it is an open question whether YouTube qualifies as a "service provider" under 512(c), even if they do, I wonder if it is reasonable for YouTube to assert that there are no--no--facts and circumstances present within its knowledge that would suggest that illegal reproduction is occurring.

Oh, enough with the Heinlein quote already. Sustaining the copyright system is not about "guaranteeing profit." If there is even the remotest connection to the concept of "profit," it is merely about protecting the possibility of such.

And while we're at it, enough with the "oppression" melodrama. You're not oppressed just because you don't have uninhibited access to the fruits of my mind.

"Oh, enough with the Heinlein quote already. Sustaining the copyright system is not about "guaranteeing profit." If there is even the remotest connection to the concept of "profit," it is merely about protecting the possibility of such."

It is really sad that there are those who seem willing to surrender our First Amendment freedoms, because so well connected corporations want to have a "guarenteed profit"

Incidently the DMCA has already been used to prevent a Scientist from presenting his research (Ed Felten), arrest a programmer for figuring out and presenting a paper on how a computer program works, and as part of Diebold's argument to supress the publication of internal memos identifying flaws in their evoting systems.

The content industry should repudiate the DMCA. If they stick to supporting the DMCA, I would be very happy to see them all go belly up, becuase, if they support the DMCA they are working against the First Amendment.

It is the responsibility of all corporations to adapt their business plans to society's freedoms, not to work through their undue influence to adapt our freedoms to their business plans.

Enigma,

Kozinski stated very eloquently that the first amendment should not be interpreted nor understood in a way as to repeal the copyright clause.

The DMCA did not stop Felten from presenting his research. I attribute the developments between Felten and the RIAA as one of outmatched political maneuvers. Remember, it does not matter what the entertainment labels say about the DMCA, it depends on what courts think. The judge in the suit Felten filed against the RIAA stated very realistically that: "The plaintiffs liken themselves to modern Galileos persecuted by authorities. I fear that a more apt analogy would be to modern day Don Quixotes feeling threatened by windmills which they perceive as giants. There is no real controversy here." Further, the DOJ provided its opinion to Felten that the RIAA really did not have a case to sue him in the first place.

You're not oppressed just because you don't have uninhibited access to the fruits of my mind.

Nor do I want them! But if you _choose freely_ to release copies of them, to publish, don't act all surprised if further copies are made and redistributed (or if they're not - the fruits of your poisoned mind aren't likely to taste all that great).

I am not demanding access to your mind. Copies of information in your mind are your own. My copy is not your copy, though - only copies exist.

I find it interesting that Spumco, in his/her first post, chose to cite the Progress Clause in the Constitution, which rationalizes copyright on the basis of incentivizing the release of the fruits of the mind, while giving the owner of that mind some control over the release. The world Spumco envisions is one in which we have a human right to copy (I missed that in my study of philosophy, Heinlein notwithstanding), and once we "release" the fruits of our mind, even if we do so within the limits allowed us by the Progress Clause, everyone else has a human right to take it. I hardly see how that incentivizes anyone to release anything.

Perhaps instead of waiting around for others to share the fruits of their minds so Spumco can copy them, Spumco could produce some fruits that might be of interest to the world -- a musical composition, a film, a novel -- and release that fruit. I would support fully his/her right to control that release, and profit from it if there was in fact a market for that fruit.

"I am not demanding access to your mind."

I didn't say you're "demanding access to (my) mind." I said -- quite specifically and quite simply -- that your lack of uninhibited access to my mind's creations does not amount to oppression.

You've responded to something I didn't write. I didn't write about some "surprise" at the redistribution of copies. I didn't write about some "demand" for access to my mind. I didn't write about some presumed desire for my creations.

I simply wrote about your melodramatic use of the word "oppression."

I that your lack of uninhibited access to my mind's creations does not amount to oppression.

Again, I don't want access to your mind's creations, that is not where the oppression lies - the oppression lies in the monitoring and interference with citizen's communications, using the triple pronged *excuse* of "copyrights, terrorism and child porn" to build enormous social power.

Your mind's creations are the original copies. The mind being akin to a computer program running in a biological medium, the "original original" could even be said to be in your mind.

Copies of (..copies of... copies of...) those creations are simply not your mind's creations.
If I destroy a copy, your copy continues to exist. They are not the same thing. QED. That's typically enough for programmers, engineers and scientists.

You copyrightists are fundamentally confused about the nature of reality. ONLY copies exist. The unphysical does not exist.

I hardly see how that incentivizes anyone to release anything.

That is more a reflection on you than anything else- you don't even understand motives other than a particular kind of profit motive, apparently.

My support for the basic human right to copy stems primarily from my understanding of the human species. All that sets us apart from other apes is the degree (not even the kind!) of our ability to learn from others and apply what we have learnt. Every copyrightist and patentist seeks to reduce their fellow human to the intellectual level of a ape or dog at best. They are a force of darkness, of evil.

I do not argue against a right to be identified as the author of a work, in fact I support it. But I'd rather the works of those who will only release if they can restrict redistribution were never released by them than have my ability to share any information as I see fit with others.

Imagine - microsoft refuses to release further windows when copyright law is abolished. What happens? They just lose more and more marketshare to linux and bsd. I'd continue working on linux in the absence of copyright law* - once open source is competing against closed source in a true free market (sans copyright or patent monopoly), my money is on open source.

(*Without copyright the GPL would be unenforceable, it would also be unnecessary)

Correction:

than have my ability to share any information as I see fit with others

_abridged_

Spumco writes: "I'd rather the works of those who will only release if they can restrict redistribution were never released by them..."

Obviously, you are not concerned about the creative and innovative advancement of society.

Noel, fact of the matter is, creative and innovative advancement happened in the complete absence of copyright and patent laws, happens in fields where one or both are absent and will continue to happen in future when we've abolished copyright and patent monopolies.

Your argument is quite similar to a slave owner moaning about the inability to build great monuments without slaves - (a) that's not sufficient reason to allow slavery and (b) it's not true anyway - at most, it changes the economics of monument building - without slavery, you have to persuade a large group of people to come together willingly. And that happens in real life (the long now) and in software (linux, BSD, GNU, etc.), and in art (the Orange project), and in medicine (medecins sans frontieres).

Without copyright and patent, the financial establishment loses _control_ of the _direction_ of creative and innovative advancement. And that's what they're really afraid of: people freely and without coercion (no one forces me to work on free software!) creating substitutable goods outside of their control and direction.

Spumco, your statement that nobody should create anything unless you can copy it sounds up there with the notion that copying is competing.

Tell me something. What is the financial establishment? Its made up of people who have successfully commercialized creative and innovative goods. To you, the commercial class may be oppressors, but I grant you they've done more for society than your arm-chair quibbling free rider.

By the way, you only address the incentive theory of innovation in your discussion of copyrights and patents. I won't talk to you about IP policy unless you're open to other justifications for IP (such as bringing new products to market through commercialization)

Spumco, your statement that nobody should create anything unless you can copy it

That's not what I said. If they won't create and release unless they can also restrict redistribution then I'd rather my right to share information with others wasn't restricted than they were pandered to, is all. They're juvenile toddlers - we should be, and are, ignoring their whining and building a better world with or without their participation.

I don't object to them creating and not releasing (I grant that individuals have a right to hold information private). But if they release a copy of an information pattern on someone else, then that someone else has a right to make further copies. NO-ONE should have the power to prevent that.

To you, the commercial class may be oppressors,

("Class"? What century are you living in?)
I'm as much a part of the "commercial class" or the "creative class" as the next person - I write software and am paid well for it. Stop trying to associate us in the commercial "class" with the financial establishment - the latter shackles the former, paying lip-service to market economics while undermining it all the time. (I favour libertarian/ anarcho-capitalist policies on the whole - see Stephan Kinsella's "The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property").

I won't talk to you about IP policy unless you're open to other justifications for IP

Oh what a pity... not.

I'm just as open to them as I am to the incentive theory - that is to say I have considered them and consider them invalid.

IP "facilitates commercialisation" of innovations *by existing established players rather than new market entrants* - it does little to facilitate commercialisation in itself, it is a tool to make sure those who gets to commercialise are friends of the establishment.

- No doubt old Bill Gates curses his younger self's forthrightness. But his analysis was spot-on

“If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete stand-still today. The solution . . . is patent exchanges . . . and patenting as much as we can. . . . A future start-up with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose. That price might be high: Established companies have an interest in excluding future competitors.” Fred Warshofsky, The Patent Wars 170-71 (NY: Wiley 1994).

Spumco,

Check out my write-ups of industry entry articles by Merges, Mann and Cockburn in the patent section on IPcentral, and you'll find that its not primarily established players that benefit from the patent system. Large firms like IBM and Intel can afford to diversify their revenue streams, and leverage means of appropriation other than IP. Smaller firms, especially ones that develop products and undertake R&D have little else than patents (although I will admit service firms rely less on patents).

The patent system is more important than Microsoft or any other corporation, so I really don't care what Bill Gates said in 1994.

The patent system is more important than Microsoft or any other corporation, so I really don't care what Bill Gates said in 1994

He said it about 1991 I think - the reference is from a published 1994 book with some degree of authority (in case you alleged I made it up. Happens). It's a pretty well-known reference, surprising you haven't encountered it.

Bill Gates, Noel, is a lot smarter than the average bear. I don't agree with his ethics, but I acknowledge his cunning and intelligence. You're of course free to believe whatever you want.

You guys are just wrong about the patent system.
Without the patent system, people like me can set up successful businesses with startup expenditures of thousands. Patents inflate that cost into millions, make it impossible not to deal with established players basically on their terms (what is one patent against 3000?) and introduce a need for retaining lawyers permanently - the patent system is used to build patent thickets and raise barriers to market entry. If the patent system existed enforceably in my field, I'd likely still be a salaryman slaving for some megacorp at best, like my peers in the USA.

Right now, it doesn't matter that the established players are bigger or can copy us - they can't use patents to shut us down either, and being large, they are less agile and more risk-averse (more to lose) and have always played catch-up. By freely sharing with others, we win.

Information just doesn't work like the physical - if I give you an apple, and you give me an orange, I'm down one apple and you're down one orange. If I give you design A and you give me design B, now we both have A+B, everyone's better off. If JoeRider never gives us anything in return for A and B, we *still have* A+B. We haven't lost anything, at most we've failed to gain - and failure to gain is not loss (if you consider it loss, how about you pay me for all the T-shirts you didn't buy from me?). Note I do NOT demand that JoeRider ever gives anything to A or B - he can hoard "C". He just shouldn't have any recourse if A+B reimplement/discover C (without interfering with his private property - i.e. JoeRider has not adequately protected his trade secrets*) or something adequately substitutable for C.

The "free rider" "problem" just isn't a problem in information, in fact the explosive progress of science has always depended on open sharing of information. Unless you subscribe to the broken window fallacy and want lawyers to have cushy jobs, patents are a disaster (I'd consider them a disaster for even th e financial establishment too, only most are too blinkered and short-term focussed to realise it)

- I am thankful that the european software patent idiocy stalled for now (but all it takes for evil to triumph is a few good men to do nothing, eh?).

>that develop products and undertake R&D have >little else than patents

This is rubbish. They have their developed products and R&D results. Innovation is its own reward, and they also have first mover advantage.

What's more, they benefit from all existing openly available human knowledge- if you insist on thinking in terms of gain and loss, access to that is already ample recompense for any practically realisable amount of research by any human.

* And before you ask: I consider the "disclosure" that patents are supposed to embody is near enough worthless these days, patent drafters seemingly pride themselves on obfuscation - and when you cut through the pages of crap, turns out the patent covers something trivial anyway - and in the USA, even looking at the patent opens you up to triple damages, so engineers are told _not_ to! You may consider that a problem with the patent system as implemented rather than the patent system in the ideal - but hey, communism looked good in the ideal too!

If it takes a few months to reverse-engineer something, a 20-year monopoly instead is not welcome - EVERY engineer or programmer I know would rather have to reverse engineer stuff (it's boring, long-winded meticulous work, but not actually "hard" as such with modern techniques - which didn't exist back when people thought the patent system was a good idea. In fields beyond software too - apothecaries of yesteryear didn't have mass spectrographs, mechanical engineers didn't have neutron imagers, etc.) than deal with a patent system.

So I don't buy the "disclosure" argument for patents either - that's a "lie to children" that engineers/programmers generally stop believing once they get a bit of experience, though some lawyers parrot it to the grave.

Spumco,

You are making the (common) mistake of viewing the world in terms of systems rather than in terms of individuals.

Intellectual property rights, like all rights, are about individuals. That some "megacorp" incidentally benefits from patents does not mean that patents are in and of themselves bad.

In general, I'd add, you're making all of this far more complicated than it has to be.