4 comments

• 

  Steve R.

  1 year ago

  Civil disobedience is clear outgrowth of ludicrous laws. The answer is that the laws underlying copyright have to be changed to be rationale and to reassert the underlying basis for copyright.
  
  The underlying purpose of copyright is to foster creativity by providing the copyright holder with a limited monopoly in terms of time. A rationale limited period of time is around five years. (It is common practice to depreciate an asset over a period of time. Even when the value of that asset is $0, it can still be used to make profits.)
  
  Additionally, copyright holders are currently asserting the possession of "rights" that they do not posses. The users of copyrighted material are entitled to maintain their rights. What this means is that copyright holders should not have the authority to restrict post-sale use of copyrighted material. (I acknowledge that the consumer does not have the right to make commercial use of the work without the authors permission.)
  
  Restoring copyright law to its original intent will foster investment and innovation. Additionally, just laws that are rationale do not create an upwelling of civil disobedience.
  reply
• 

  Don Marti

  1 year ago

  It used to be common practice to turn pigs loose in the forest, to root out their own food until they got big enough to eat. Unfortunately, feral swine interfere with the other benefits of the forest, so the Forest Service doesn't allow them today.
  
  

  Today, Internet and technology policy is a tool for encouraging the production of content in the same way that forest management policy is a tool for encouraging the production of pork. If you could run the forest in such a way to get the pork plus the other benefits of the technology "forest", it would be fine, but when you balance it out, the pigs have to go.

  reply
• 

  Doug Lay

  1 year ago

  >> And at a systemic level, consumers and content producers and equipment makers and so on *all* have an interest in figuring out how to enforce copyright in a digital environment.
  
  I don't think that's quite true. We all have an interest in content creators getting paid, so they continue to create. I'm afraid, however, that COPYright, understood as control over the right to make copies, is becoming an increasingly untenable mechanism for ensuring that creators get paid, given the inexorable technological advances embodied by the Internet and digital storage.
  
  Insistence on COPYright enforcement (which means DRM and file-sharing lawsuits, more or less) isn't likely to remind everyone of our common interests. More likely, it will line up the content industry against both consumers and technologists. And in the long run (even the not-so-long run) that's a fight the content industry is going to lose.
  reply
• 

  eee_eff

  1 year ago

  And unless the underlying principles that the advocates are putting forward make sense in the context of a larger system, their advocacy has less to do with justice and more to do with short-run convenience.
  
  That is the issue, Justice vs. convenience. The injustice of a law like the DMCA for example, brought into existence for the short-run convenience of a business plan of a group of large well-connected corporations, really nothing more than corruption.
  
  The problem is this entire 'larger system' which you defend is at its heart deeply corrupt, and that is why it destroys freedom, wherever that system spreads.
  reply