Lessig

Peters is speaking in response to a question from Cory Doctorow at conference at UNC last November. The video was shot by UNC-TV and digitized by TJ Ward of ibiblio.org.
See also Cory's Boing Boing posts about the webcasting flag and the term of copyright (in the US)

It is nice to see *someone* in Washington say this, alas, the "wrong" person merely because it won't "do" anything. But I will try to remain optimistic (an increasingly hard thing to do when confronted with an overwhelming body of data which indicates that congress is ONLY going to expand the powers available to copyright holders, never curtail it) that this statement may be the tip of an iceberg of change.

Because the issue of copyright is not a "hot-button" issue congress will never take it seriously that this issue needs redress. "Floor-time" for legislation to revamp basic copyright law (such as length of term) and its associated legal cohorts such as the DMCA will never happen.

In the past, I have been among the shrinking minority who would try to get others around me to understand what copyright is and how it is supposed to work and why it may not be such a good thing to simply download that piece of music or movie without eventually paying for it (that is if you have decided to "keep" it. My personal moral code allows sampling via file sharing, although the law and certainly the RIAA/MPAA don't agree) by buying a "legitimate" copy. Things are pretty grim, however: practically infinite copyright terms (certainly as it applies to my lifetime) coupled with the DMCA/DRM monster I'm at the point of abandoning all hope and embracing piracy. I go further: I'm actively contemplating encouraging piracy because I consider significant financial retribution just deserts for what the "copyright cartel" has done to the "commons" and to our individual rights. My thinking is that a grass-roots movement where overwhelming numbers of people around the world simply take copyrighted materials as their own might have a sobering effect on our legislators and enable them to see the error of their ways.

... who am I fooling? About 0.00001% of the population understand or care about these issues. Truly sad.

Stealing copywrited material is big business in many poorer countries. And it doesn't stop there - jeans, watches, you name it... It has been around forever - and it isn't going to go away. The music industry is just going to have to use technology to thwart the thieves. Whatever the government does is going to be ineffective ...

More rationalizing bullshit. Civil disobedience is pointless in the comfort of your living room: it is thetorical masturbation.

The facts are:

During the peak years of "piracy" in the US the RIAA reported growing profits with every passing year.

The RIAA organizations maintain a growing corporate presence even in the countries where american notions about intellectual proerty have almost zero popular support. They are able to do this because they control the channels of popular communication - the hotwire into the living rooms of the world - and all the file sharing in the world will not change this.

"Piracy" costs record companies potential profits. But "piracy" in the context of file sharing has exactly the same net effect as "broadcast" - every time you "share" Madonna you give the plantation owners voice; you stick another needle in the arm of a culture that needs to change, and in doing so you help perpeptuate the control of the very people you claim as some sort of enemy: You feed the corporate propaganda machine that is the source of your banal resentment.

If you want to change things, you share the works of the people who cater to your line of thinking and, in doing so, you give them voice. You respect the value of intellectual works and you encoourage those around you to do so and, in doing this, you give them motive to seek alternative sources of entertainment - works created those who share the values of the new culture.

Your rhetoric of destruction has been refuted countless times in forums the world over. The facts of your argument are obvious: the entertainment industry is not your "enemy" at all; they are the monkey on your back that you have come to think of as a warm coat and all you are trying to do is rationalize theft of the junk that gives you fix. You don't want things to change at all - you want the system exactly as it is so you can continue to feed on the hype and polish of a corrupt industry.

Your rhetoric is an astral beacon of hypocrisy. if you want things to change, you will never accomplish that goal by rationalizing away your responsibility to the values you claim to uphold.

More rationalizing bullshit. Civil disobedience is pointless in the comfort of your living room: it is thetorical masturbation.

Hmmm. You seem to know a lot more about me than seems possible.

This outburst is easily put down: who says I would confine any action I would take on this matter to my living room? Or my home for that matter? Should I consider taking some sort of action that I would deem effective towards achieving the goals previously stated, I assure you that these actions will not be limited to my "living room".

During the peak years of �piracy� in the US the RIAA reported growing profits with every passing year.

I am well aware of these facts.

The RIAA organizations maintain a growing corporate presence even in the countries where american notions about intellectual proerty have almost zero popular support. They are able to do this because they control the channels of popular communication - the hotwire into the living rooms of the world - and all the file sharing in the world will not change this.

We are in agreement about the channel of communication, mostly. Regarding the file sharing issue I think that you will eventually found mistaken. Or more precisely, you can be found to be mistaken. Also, please don't even consider P2P or other "typical" file sharing as the end of the line with regard to the potential civil disobedience action I have in mind. Give away CDs, files, USB drives, etc can also be applied. Basically any medium capable of furthering this cause could be used.

I also agree with your general interpretation of the expansion of RIAA and the member companies that they represent into countries that may constitute "future markets".

�Piracy� costs record companies potential profits. But �piracy� in the context of file sharing has exactly the same net effect as �broadcast� - every time you �share� Madonna you give the plantation owners voice; you stick another needle in the arm of a culture that needs to change, and in doing so you help perpeptuate the control of the very people you claim as some sort of enemy: You feed the corporate propaganda machine that is the source of your banal resentment.

Ok, I'm going to try to say this again more clearly:

The actions I'm contemplating will not be victimless the purpose of any action I would contemplate would be to victimize are those member companies that the RIAA/MPAA represent. Their victimization will be the direct result of their continued application of draconian copyright-enabled controls.

As far as "feeding the corporate propaganda machine that is the source of your banal resentment.", again it should be apparent that this is in fact a desired goal. I want to push the RIAA/MPAA to the point of declaring marshal law. I WANT them to go berserk. I want them to pursue a course of action that deliberately brings to light their intentions: the eradication of fair use and total lock-down of all media conduits.

This is a game of brinkmanship. When they are pushed to prematurely pursue what is ultimately their goal they will be rejected en-mass. By then all of use will be criminals, or, more likely, our elected representatives will be able to finally see the error of their ways because it will become apparent that the RIAA/MPAA tactics have resulted in backlash against themselves as well.

If you want to change things, you share the works of the people who cater to your line of thinking and, in doing so, you give them voice. You respect the value of intellectual works and you encoourage those around you to do so and, in doing this, you give them motive to seek alternative sources of entertainment - works created those who share the values of the new culture.

This is a no-brainer. Consider it done. You really don't need to get all frothy in the mouth with me to see, at the core, a decent person.

Your rhetoric of destruction has been refuted countless times in forums the world over. The facts of your argument are obvious: the entertainment industry is not your �enemy� at all; they are the monkey on your back that you have come to think of as a warm coat and all you are trying to do is rationalize theft of the junk that gives you fix. You don�t want things to change at all - you want the system exactly as it is so you can continue to feed on the hype and polish of a corrupt industry.

Again, I'm amazed at how much you know of me.

The "refutation" of what ever "arguments" I'm putting forth is: 1) irrelevant and 2) quite "wrong" for a great number of cases. I will return to my "action" that I am proposing earlier: I believe that civil disobedience is in order here. Granted, it for a cause not quite as noble a cause as the civil rights movement in the mid part of the 20th century or the liberation of India from Great Brittan, but it does have a core set of goals. I certainly consider, from the vantage-point of the early 21st century that both of these causes were just and the civil disobedience that lead to these social changes justified. Therefore, I consider your "refutation" weak at best.

As far as my "fix" that I want fed, I will have to reveal a bit about myself to illustrate: I don't own a TV. Since I left home I have never had cable TV. I do not own an iPod. I do have a number of computers that I run Linux on, including my wife and children, and we do enjoy occasionally watching (legally acquired, but due to the DMCA I am not legally allowed to do) DVDs and I do rip CDs (that I purchased legally) into OGG files. I have also started to rip some of my DVDs to put onto a server for convenience. All I see is to retain my ability to do this. I wish to retain my ability to use the "media" I get for practical personal use. My days of doing that are rapidly coming to a close.

As far as the "action" I proposed earlier I believe that the "hype and polish" of the "copyright cartel" will manifest itself as something quite "other" than that.

Your rhetoric is an astral beacon of hypocrisy. if you want things to change, you will never accomplish that goal by rationalizing away your responsibility to the values you claim to uphold.

I readily admit to be a hypocrite, I am comfortable with that. Are you brave enough to admit the truth which is that you are also a hypocrite? I thought so.

This has been entertaining, but clearly you have been reduced to flailing. I would offer a simple suggestion: please don't try to think you "know" to whom you are writing. Believe me, I do understand you position, and I do appreciate the fact that there are problems with what I'm proposing. But for me I do not equate "legal" with "right". You may not be able to separate these two words, but I can. I am simply acting out of my subjective interpretation that what the "copyright cartel" is and are planning to do to the general public is not to my liking. Furthermore, I think it has little public benefit. My thinking is that the time is ripe to force some "natural selection" on the business practices of the "old-school" copyright moguls. You may disagree, that is your prerogative.

Nate: What stops me from playing DVDs is that most movies are movies I don't want to see. I've become a more discriminating moviegoer so the vast majority of what Hollywood studios have to offer is simply unappealing to me, regardless of the price of admission or rental. My time means more to me, so I don't waste it on things I think are junk. However, I recognize that my perspective is quite different from most people; lots of people enjoy what I eschew.

To answer you more directly, I have no problem with people endorsing deCSS use if they want to watch their legally-obtained encrypted DVDs on their GNU/Linux system. I'm against railroading people into giving up their software freedom. I think that is a far more interesting ethical dilemma than it might at first appear to be.

This is why I don't publish MP3s, videos encoded with proprietary codecs, and texts in formats which require non-free software to read. I don't want the stuff I publish to serve as a temptation for others to give up their software freedom. Fortunately, I don't have to. All of the things I publish can be done with unencumbered codecs and Free Software, often with higher quality results than their encumbered and/or proprietary alternatives.

poptones, I am relieved that you have chosen to actually engage in this discussion, when you are not trying to insult me you make some very good points.

You call for revision of copyright but ignorantly and stubbornly refusealso brings with it the burden to look objectively at the realm of "fair use."

I don't stubbornly refuse the burden to look at anything. I'm quite open to discussing this issue as well.

Again, the facts are that DRM brings with it an issue of speech. It is every bit my right to publish legal works in whatever language or manner I please. It is my creative work, it is my right to publish - that’s the entire point of copyright and, in many ways, copyright is directly linked to our right to speech. If I want to publish my work cryptographically, in a manner that allows playback only on a particular device this is no different at all than my desire to publish only on LP records or 8 track tapes. The fact you can transform LP records and 8 track tapes does not mean you have now, or have ever had the right to do these things. I have the capability of driving 100 MPH through school zones, too, but doing so would make me a public menace and so I have never had that right.

I deny none of your publishing rights arguments. You are also free to publish in something completely indecipherable, your prerogative, please do so.

I do deny the limits you impose on can, in fact, I would resist and pursue every avenue possible to stop you or anyone else for that matter, from prohibiting me to transform legally obtained copyrighted into any form I wish for personal use. If it's a book I can scribble on it, burn it, use it to level my coffee table, etc. If it is in digital form then I recognize no authority other than my own to do with this data as I please. I recognize no authority other than myself to control the devices I own outright to play or otherwise access digital content in what ever form I deem worthwhile. Now, the law and precedent may in some obtuse way say "no" to everything I just said, but this is exactly what I am on about when I said I want to see and EXPANSION of the realm of "fair use". You are free to publish anyway you see fit, I am free to consume it any way I see fit. If the law prohibits this then the law, not me, must be changed.

Your analog of driving a car at 100MPH is not applicable. I am talking about transformations I would make to copyrighted materials for personal use. Not about re-introducing my transformed versions of copyrighted materials back into a "public space", like where a car drives. If I has my own private race track I can certainly drive my car at 100MPH.

This is not "brinksmanship." DRM is coming whether you will aloow yourself to see this as fact or not - it’s here and the capabilities are going to expand, and this is not so black and white as your narrow focus on entertainment would paint it. DRM will allow the creation of scarcity and legitimacy in a field where it has never before been possible. The potential benefits this brings to our society vastly outweigh the potential downside.

DRM may be coming, this is not in dispute. What is important is that I don't like it. I will go further: practically nobody likes it. There are some who do, but it is a tyranny of the minority here. I am sufficiently outraged by the proponents of DRM that I am willing and able to take extensive actions to fight the propagation of this scourge.

In particular, the use of DRM to create artificial scarcity is EXACTLY and PRECICELY at the core of my hatred of DRM and all it implies: it is trying to apply the rules of the corporeal to the world of the ethereal. This is directly the results of sick-minded thinking. Why? simple: DRM dies not work. It is an essentially flawed concept without merit. There will never be a DRM system capable of stopping those who can make money from illegally circumventing the DRM scheme. It is a total waste of resources and time. Both of these are paid for by me and you. Yes, piracy is also paid by us to. But the irony is that if I buy from a pirate there is no DRM therefore retaining my "traditional" as well as expanded (according to me) "fair use" rights, while the legitimate version treats me as a criminal from the get go. As for the potential value to society that you allude to: you are a madman (or woman as the case may be) [look, I'm a hypocrite: I lauded you for finally stopping insulting me while I take a pot-shot at you, ironic]. There are far more beneficial results that would result from a world where information sharing actually works like the archetype that it is modeled after: the human brain. As a species we have literally millions of years of evidence that shows that shared information benefits society as a whole. You can continue to hold your position, but we will have to simply agree to disagree.

Your hypocritical rhetoric would have an entire world - a world where people are too busy in their daily lives trying to fend off starvation and oppression to worry about what Vanna’s wearing - remain in bondage simply because the alternative might interfere with your imaginary "right" to waste vast amounts of your decadent leisure time in a raptorious veil of media self indulgence and distraction.

Firstly, is this issue the "most important" in some way? No, there are clearly more pressing issues facing the population of the world: please take action to improve the situation. But when the conversation turn to copyright and DRM or "intellectual property" (whatever that means) then I have certain strong feelings about how I think things should work.

That said, there is no excuse for not being vigilant on this front: the expansion of powers related to copyright needs to stop and be curtailed.

By your vapid rationalizations you are making yourself part of the problem. You are making yourself every bit as much a part of that oppressive establishment as the shark skinned vipers you would feed with your money and your "free speech."

My you are full of characterizations of me, have we met before?

Well, despite your repeated bullying attempts I hold my ideas in no less esteem no then when we started this little "get together". I can assure that what many be "vapid" to you does indeed resonate with many people. I am not alone in the opinions I have expressed here, and even if I were I would still hold these opinions and defend them enthusiastically. Your arguments to shut me up have gotten more lucid with each attempt, but have done little or nothing to assuage me.

As far as making myself "part of the problem": I intend to sir.

Jim

I’m going to drop another bombshell into the middle of this thread: dissolve the copyright system. Ok, I’m crazy, I know. But it would work.

Well one of those statements is correct, probably the one you admit.

The rise of Western Civilisation since the 16th century is directly related to the patent and to lesser extent copyright and trade mark systems. The system of Intellectual Property is, as one commentator put it, a pillar of a technologically forward society. Now I dont want to give a diatribe about why that statement is correct - safe to say - people will not publicise great ideas and expressions without some reward because the costs are prohibative. It is the reason why the Beatles or Windows or any other great product in history has been able to get into every individual home - because there was no identical 'pirated' product in competition.

And there is another reason - respect. Do you not agree that if a person is willing to share thier creative effort with you then you should respect them by not altering thier work or not using thier work without thier permission? Do you believe that you have a right to something that they have spent thier valuable time working on?

Civil Disobedience is an honoured phrase reserved for actions that are against laws that oppress individuals and groups. You consider the limitation on your right to enjoy the works of others, for free, as oppression. How warped you are.

It is that kind of thinking that will return our society to where it was in the sixteenth century.

PS:-

Granted, it for a cause not quite as noble a cause as the civil rights movement in the mid part of the 20th century or the liberation of India from Great Brittan

You got that right (and nice grammar and spelling by the way).

Ok, who to respond to first, I'll start with ACS:

Well one of those statements is correct, probably the one you admit.

I admit that both are correct: one is correct now (I am crazy) and one could be correct in the future (But it would work)

The rise of Western Civilisation since the 16th century is directly related to the patent and to lesser extent copyright and trade mark systems. The system of Intellectual Property is, as one commentator put it, a pillar of a technologically forward society. Now I dont want to give a diatribe about why that statement is correct - safe to say - people will not publicise great ideas and expressions without some reward because the costs are prohibative. It is the reason why the Beatles or Windows or any other great product in history has been able to get into every individual home - because there was no identical ‘pirated’ product in competition.

This is the same type of statement made by those who argue against "global warming" (I'm using this as a similitude, not to now open a debate on global warming): Since we do not have another Earth to act at a control, that is to say one without human beings, we cannot scientifically conclude that human activity is a significant contributor to global warming. What you are saying is that starting around the 16th century the nascent ideas of copyright and patent were developed. Coincidentally, there was a flowering of new ideas in the "western world" (mostly Europe). Now, I'm stuck in the converse position as the "global warming" argument above: I do not have a control Earth where in its 16th century copyrights and patents were not founded. This much I will admit, therefore, anything I say about a world without copyright laws is pure conjecture. However, I disagree about 1) the causal relationship you propose and 2) that we got things like "the Beatles" and Windows as a result.

Regarding: 1) Causality
History played out the way it played out and there is little to gain arguing about the potential and acute causes of events in history. For this example I'm sure we could have an endless pissing contest citing this research or that research to back up the various claims we would throw out at one another.

Regarding: 2) Outcomes
I think that it is safe to say that people were writing music, books, doing mathematics, making stupendous financial investments in stuff long before copyrights and patents came on to the scene. I would argue that the evidence shows that human beings would not have stopped doing this kind of activity had copyrights and patents not come along.

Regarding the statement "people will not publicise great ideas and expressions without some reward because the costs are prohibative" is clearly false. A more correct statement is "some people will not publicize great ideas and expressions without some reward because the costs are prohibitive", but some will. It is not clear to me that I should actually care about those who will only publicize great ideas with monetary reward. You may disagree, as I'm sure you do. But you see, the "people" that you are referring to want more than simple payment, because if that is all they want they could be paid for their time by some benefactor or a collection could be made for them. No, these people want the rules that regulate social discourse, laws, to be created in their honor. I have lost my conviction that these people are deserving of such laws.

And there is another reason - respect. Do you not agree that if a person is willing to share thier creative effort with you then you should respect them by not altering thier work or not using thier work without thier permission? Do you believe that you have a right to something that they have spent thier valuable time working on?

Let's dissect these questions:

Respect: yes, I would like to grant respect to others, generally. However, respect given from one person to another generally is earned, it is not a right. (The Law is written differently with how it accords "respect" to the citizenry subject to the Law because the Law is not a person, merely a set of rules meted out by people). Generally speaking I accord strangers polite respect for I know not how to act otherwise and I would like such treatment in return. Beyond that, when I actually have more information the degree and kind of respect I display can change.

Do you not agree that if a person is willing to share thier creative effort with you then you should respect them by not altering thier work or not using thier work without thier permission?

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Not as you phrased it.

What is confused here is that there is a layer of legality woven into your question that is inappropriate to the debate.

Firstly: Sharing anything is not synonymous with any form of entitlement. This is to say "share what you want, how it is taken and how it is used by those who receive what you shared really isn't ultimately up to you."

Secondly: Non-alteration. Hmmm. You really want me to open this up? Ok.

- Once I take possession of "something" (to be explored in a moment) it really is mine to do with as I please, after all, that is "ownership" (for some appropriate definition of "ownership"). If, in the end, you are not able to apply a controlling influence over "something" as a manifestation of your "will" then it really cannot be considered "owned" now can it?

In the end I'm not going to take your bait. If I get a book. The book was written by someone, probably copyrighted, but I can write all over it if I please. I can even rewrite it if I want. (I'm talking about taking a pen and actually writing over text in the book, I'm not talking about retyping the book). Is that disrespectful? Some would say yes, but generally no there really isn't any thing wrong with that.

Ok, so here's another way to "alter" a work that doesn't involve ink. When the work is inside my head I can play with it and alter it any way I want. More on this later.

Thirdly: not using their work without permission. Corollary: I do not relinquish my rights simply because I've taken part in interacting with someone else's shared work.

Well, the ink writing example cited above would certainly be without their permission. Playing with the "shared" work in my head and drawing conclusions that the "author" of the shared work might be construed as without permission. Perhaps, if I were blind and plopped the book down on a scanner and via OCR had the book read to me might be without the author's permission. No, so far I don't see how the author's permission plays into any of this.

Although I can see what you are trying to accomplish with the question you posed, I believe that such a question has no one definitive answer.

Civil Disobedience is an honoured phrase reserved for actions that are against laws that oppress individuals and groups. You consider the limitation on your right to enjoy the works of others, for free, as oppression. How warped you are.

I'm only going to respond to this because you gall to phrase your statement this way.

What group is being repressed? Let me start out by saying that I have not engaged in piracy of any kind, yet. Therefore, I consider myself among the group of law-abiding citizenry that would like to have legal access to copyrighted materials without out of the gate being treated like a criminal. How am I and others like me being treated like criminals out of the gate? DMCA and DRM along with various copyright extensions over he years is the simple answer. The classic "copyright cartel" (albeit I'm not defining this term, one that I have used more than once, perhaps someday I provide my definition) has been able to get on the books laws that make it illegal for me to do certain things with copyrighted materials I legitimately buy.

DVDs - Can't circumvent CSS without breaking the law (I run Linux and use DeCSS to play my DVDs). I don't want a friggin' licensed player, I want the DMCA repealed. I should be able to get a plastic disc that I payed good money for and drop it into my computer no questions asked.

CDs - Although none of the DRM strategies that effect Windows and the Mac seem to effect Linux yet it is ridiculous to be treated like a criminal when you just dropped $14 for a CD only to find that it is going to try to stop you from playing it.

Practically infinite lifetime copyrights - when the mouse is going to be threatened with public domain status Walt and Co. will just buy another copyright extension law. What does this mean to you and I? Practically unending lockup of stories and ideas mostly in the control of very few who profited considerably from the public domain not giving back their fair share.

In the pipeline:

Trusted Computer Platform (TCP) - Hardware supported DRM enabling the lock-down of ANYTHING the "copyright cartel's" heart desires. This includes remote revocation of licenses. So, now I have a PC that I paid for, it is "mine" and some person out on the Internet get wind of something I'm doing they don't like and *poof* I can't watch a certain movie. Oh yeah, I tell you what I would be doing: copying the disc image to a server so I can watch it without needing the disc. But you see, that's wrong.

HDCP - Total end-to-end lock-down of video. So forget about making that VHS tape of movies so your kids can watch without destroying the disc (example direct for a L. Lessig speech).

HD-DVD and Blue-Ray - The end of my video watching days and I'm not going to give in to the demand that I get a black box with more security than the NSA to watch a movie. All this security is supposed to thwart pirates, but it won't but it will thwart me. Perhaps DVD Jon will crack this one too and I'll be able to resume my mere criminal status.

Eventually (towards the end of my lifetime, certainly in the lifetime of my children):

The line between the inner world of our mind and the "net" will blur. The brain can and will be directly linked to the "outside" world. At which point one needs to ask the question: are copyright and patent laws going to stop at the skull? Probably not. For the ethereal world of the computer and the net are kin. If a line that pushes the legal constructs of patents and copyrights, which originated and are "reasonably" applicable to the world where physical laws apply but rapidly reduce to absurdity in places where physical laws cease to apply who is to say that YOUR thoughts do not violate somebody else's copyright or patent?

So, in short the oppressed group I identify are those people who are today legally engaged in the acquisition of copyrighted materials that are having both their fair use rights simply taken away and secondly being treated as a criminal by being subjected to technological controls that dictate terms of use, even if the only "alternate" uses that the user would engage in would be perfectly legal and socially acceptable.

I don't consider that to be warped. Perhaps you do, then we simply disagree.

It is that kind of thinking that will return our society to where it was in the sixteenth century.

This is a non sequitur, the 16th century was what it was because that is how far human beings had developed civilization to that point. Perhaps some (a very small amount) of pre-16th century thinking would do us good.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, now on to poptones

I have a theory about you, of course I cannot prove this theory but I think that you are a troll paid by the RIAA or MPAA to keep an eye on L. Lessig's blog to repress intelligent discussion about copyrights. If you aren't in their pay I would suggest you seek out their employ.

Your “feelings” are informed by ignorance, and the proof of my assertion is in that you are, despite repeated points made to illustrate this fact, unable to discern how these issues are completely intertwined.

I think you analysis is a bit off Doc. So far my feelings on this matter check out. I'm in the clear. Your "points" have all been dispatched with prejudice.

There will always be people who can counterfeit reserve notes, and there will always be people who lurk in dark places and force passersby to pay them tribute under threat of bodily harm. That doesn’t make property rights a "failed system" or personal rights "irrelevant."

Non sequitur.

You talk of corporeal - well, let’s talk corporeal. Who owns your soul? You may talk of your right to feed your soul as you desire, but is that truly your right? Or is it merely your ability? You cannot possess your soul because it is not a thing of tangible form or even a thing which we all can agree exists. What we can agree is that you possess your body. Your body exists; it can be quantified, and in that sense you “own” it. But when you give up your body, who owns the soul? It is not something you created and it is not something you can destroy. If the soul exists, it is not yours at all - yet, many would agree, it is the sum of your essence. You may spindle, fold and mutilate your body as you see fit, but this does not give you any such capability (or right) to do so with your soul.

Corporeal | Cor*po"re*al |
(k^or*p=o"r-e*al), a. L.
corporeus, fr. corpus body.
Having a body; consisting of, or pertaining to, a material
body or substance; material; -- opposed to spiritual or
immaterial.

1) I'm an atheist, I have no soul. Neither do you in fact.

2) I see you have picked up a book on philosophy. Then you should also note that it is a well established philosophical tenet that the notion of "ownership" has no meaningful definition. I certainly abide by that result having convinced myself of its unassailable truth.

3) For "practical" reasons we create, conjure, or otherwise pull out of our ass some legal definition of "ownership" that is sufficiently "meaningful" (but ultimately not) to allow us to live in a shared space with limited resources. Viz.: "owning" houses, cars, etc. Generally, we can do a "reasonable", but hardly perfect job of creating the legal definitions mostly because we tend to work well with things that have "boundaries" and obey physical laws.

4) Legally we do an absolutely horrible job of defining any remotely reasonable definition of "ownership" for that which is ethereal. This is usually because there is no boundary. There really are no limits in the way ethereal things can be transmuted into other ethereal things of like "structure" as an example Algebraic groups. It is precisely for these reasons that I put forth my "drop copyrights" idea above. I stick to that proposal.

Now that the preliminaries are out of the way: Since I am an atheist I need not address your blather about souls, spirits, etc. And since I've already put forth previously arrived at results that ownership is meaningless, then I would certainly agree that even ownership of one's thoughts is meaningless and undefinable therefore copyrights and patents need to be dispensed with post-haste. Now, since the "post-haste" part of my previous statement is probably not going to come true in my lifetime I will first start with at least clipping something off: I've already said that I would like a repeal of the DMCA, a shortening of copyright terms and an expansion of "fair use" rights. I probably won't even get that in my lifetime, but if I did then at least I made a positive contribution to mankind (others may disagree of course). I will have to leave efforts to further decrease the amount of institutional insanity to subsequent generations.

If you wish to scribble on you data, do feel free to do so. However, the data is not the thing you own. If your computer fails, can you not still have the data? This is not a paradigm that lends itself to old notions of property and ownership and your inability to discern this also vividly portrays the ignorance of your opinion. What is the essence of a car? Is it not transport? If your car fails or is stolen, can you still drive it to work the next day? Of course not - but your computer can be utterly destroyed and yet you still may possess its essence.

I had a friend of mine who once coined something he called the "agreement principle". The general form of the "agreement principle" is this: The "heat" of an argument is inversely proportional to the "distance" of the opposing sides. So, the closer you are to actually agreeing with someone else the more heated the argument/discussion becomes.

This statement shows that we agree, at least philosophically, more then disagree. But I would dispense with the Platonic essence stuff.

As far as "data" in my computer (leaving aside discussions of "will" free or otherwise), generally, it is desirable that the data within "my" computer agree substantially with the mental model of what I think is inside my computer. That said, I as owner of the computer am final and supreme arbiter over what gets into my computer. Once in my computer I am sole arbiter of what transformations are to be applied on said data. Said in English: All I ask for is that I be allowed (by inclusion in the market place of "content" digestible by my computer) to legally come into ownership of copyrighted materials, that I can freely ACCESS on my computer and that I can use any way I see fit for my personal use.

Possession does not equate ownership. Even in the realm of the ‘real,” possession is only temporal and ownership merely a construct of that realm. You talk of an imagined ability to prevent such constructs, but I submit the vast history of man readily illustrates the futility of any such pursuit. Entire armies of men greater than you or I have been unable to overcome the basic facts of life in this corporeal realm; your insistence that you, somehow, hold such god like power only makes you to be a fool… a hypocritical fool.

I will repeat an absolutely meaningless philosophical, but potentially practical definition of physical ownership I mentioned before: In the small, I own something firstly if I can apply my will to control, either directly or indirectly, the behavior of some object in question, secondly, if "others" accept but do not prohibit me from doing the first.

Armies, hypocrisy, foolishness and all other such lavish words you are willing, able, and apparently quite keen to throw at me aside, I return to where I first started:

First: a halt to all expansion of copyright-based laws that are intended to make consumers of copyrighted materials criminals by default, or criminals as a result of “traditional” fair-uses of copyrighted materials.

Second: an actual REDUCTION of the length of the copyright term. Personally I cannot see a rational argument for anything longer than 20 years.

Third: an expansion of “fair-use” applications of copyrighted materials.

poptones,

You are a funny person, but I think you have a bit of froth around your mouth.

I'll gladly respond later, but I'll give the short version here: I disagree with you on most of the of your last post. Both in its characterizations of me and the "substance" of your response.

Guns, at dawn, 40 paces.

My understanding, which I’d love to have corrected by someone with greater legal knowledge, is that within the US (where I am) the DeCSS code is illegal, and additionally each use of that code to playof a DVD is also illegal as a violation of the DMCA.

It is. But in the context of an individual using decss for his or her own personal enjoyment in his or her home, enforcement of this is essentially impossible. I too would welcome a well crafted rebuttal from a qualified legal counselor, but based upon past exchanges with other legal professionals I would say this qualifies as de minimis infringement - that is, essentially akin to copying a record to tape for one's personal enjoyment, sharing the tape with a friend, or a bunch of teens gathering in one's bedroom to listen to music together.

However, when one infringes copyright by applying decsss to a dvd in order to rip for publication, say, via torrents, the DMCA prohibitions against such technology provide one more legal bullet to charge against the infringer - much as, no matter what else they can find on you, at minimum the government, if determined, will always find a way to challenge the well funded criminal for money laundering or tax evasion.

The DMCA lends other, previously unseen, teeth to copyright matters in that it compounds civil offenses to matters of federal violations and puts pressures upon matters of free speech and research, but that doesn't make the entire body of code "bad." Protecting the value of encrypted works will, in the very short term, be readily seen as akin to protecting the value of federal currency or the more recently established right to "privacy."

By the way, to answer a question long ago posed in this thread: yes, I do in fact know people who use linux and who do not use decss. My best friend, in fact, a professor at the local state uniy, does not make use of these technologies; he has a dvd player to play dvds and doesn't even download torrents of tv shows because he is respectful of the copyrights. So yes, there are people for whom this is relevant - not as a matter of law or of penalies, but of ethic.

Complete control or ownership of video does not prevent free speech. At the most extreme all you need do is point a hi8 camera at the screen and rip that tape to your machine, or even construct a cracked machine (provided, of course, you are sufficiently informed to do so and determined enough). However, DRM CAN prevent you from easily making an exact copy, however, or one that can be remixed or repurposed. But even that doesn't matter - in the context of free speech you can always quote the work verbally or recreate it descriptively. DRM cannot prevent the distribution of information, only the repurposing or redistribution of specific embodiments of knowledge.

I cannot quote for you some the work of Disney, for example, even now. Decades ago Disney made a movie called Song of the South that many object to as having racist overtones. Disney pulled this film from the market and I am unaware of any copies in circulation. That doesn't prevent me from describing the film, however, or telling you about my experiences viewing it when I was a child and it was still appearing in theatres. Nor did its unavailability on the market prevent Saturday Night Live from creating a vivid parody of the work in its "Uncle Jemima" malt liquor ad. This is the eultimate form of rights management (complete refusal to publish) and yet it has not, in any way, prevented the free expression of others - because once you have shared information there is no effective means of preventing its spread.

This is the crux of DRM: before things were digital there was a more obvious barrier between information and knowledge. Digital technology blurs that line because it allows specific embodiments of knowledge to spread nearly as easily and completely as infromation itself. Allowing those who choose to rebuild that barrier on their works as it suits them still will not prevent the dissemination of information even though it allows them to reclaim the territory lost that stands in distance between information and knowledge.

But DRM is not just about protecting certain embodiments of knowledge. It also allows protecting cvertain forms of data, and the laws protecting its reuse in that scope can likewise protect the rights and privacy of individuals. Data "leaks" are a real problem right now, and that's largely because companies construct vast warehouses of information that present easy targets to attack. A system of meaningful and trustworthy DRM could allow, for example, the establishment of a digital currency. And once you have that there is no need to depend on credit companies, banks, and amazon.com to store that vulnerable information "for your convenience" - you can simply fill up the virtual ATM that lives inside your machine with currency which can be exchanged online exactly as cash. When you have that ability, what need does amazon have of your credit information?

None at all. Nor would they have need to store your other information because you can safely store it in your own machine and exchange it with others through established secure protocols. In that way ecommerce can be transacted in a cash based society - a structure where every individual controls their own information and laws and protocols help them protect it. In that scope an attacker would be relegated to virtual mugger or bank robber - either he picks off your neighbor and you one by one, or he contnues to attack those warehouses. But in that way amazon's problem are not compounded into your problem and 50,000 others.

That same technology could likewise enable me or you to create our own currency. just as you may now create a painting that has unique value and sell it, so to you might create unique digital works and exchange them with others who see value in them. They could be artistic in nature but need not be - they need only be unique. This could be a boon to criminals as well - for example, it could allow them to work within online communities laundering money. But at some point it would require them to deposit that money into the digital realm, and at that point they would still become vulnerable... just as they are now always and have been.

This is only one example of the way in which DRM may represent an increase in the ability of the individual to secure their privacy online. In a peer to peer model of exchange, outside the tariffs and tracking the online banking agencies presently exert, via their ownership of virtually all channels of online commerce, over every single transaction of even the smallest bit of monetary value, individuals may transact business a much more democratized environment.

And decss is applicable to only one specific technology: dvds. the next generation of DVDs will not be vulnerable to decss because they will not use css, they will use stronger encryption and watermarking and an enirely different security protocol. The works protected by css will never be individually traceable, therefore they will never be able to track you in the way that you so fear.

However, you do not have the immunity you seem to imagine. If you fear these protocols of control you need to get off the grid NOW, because your IP address can pin you down wherever you are in the world. If you are on a laptop and jacking into open wireless gateways in the area you can still be pinned down by a determined attacker because the point at which you connect will have access to the unique ID of the network adapter in your computer AND to other characteristics that are roughly unique to each machine. If you piss off the wrong people, eventually they WILL find you. Nothing about DRM, TCPA, the DTLA or DMCA will change this - it's built into the system and has been from the beginning.

You know, ACS, until I read the last two words of your post I had never even considered something:

China and the FSU have tradictionally had very weak property rights and nearly no system of IP enforcement. Can it be coincidence that these regimes also have a vast history of imprisoning dissidents and persecuting artists?

Gee, I wonder if those weak IP laws are not coincidence at all. Weaken physical property laws and the proletariate can still eat, but weaken IP laws and you make it nearly impossible for those artists to do so...

ACS,

Thanks for the comments, here are my responses:

A copyright licence is in essence a permission or consent from the author to a person exercising the right in copyright. It forms the consideration for a promise or contract.

Example - You may only use my work on condition that you (a) only use this work on a CSS area 1 device (b) do not reproduce this work (c) do not communicate this work to the public for reward etc etc etc.

If you take the work you are bound in contract. You are also limited to the rights granted to you. If you act beyond those rights you are infringing "reserved rights" in the copyright.

I hope that gives you a platform to review these issues under law. Please note that this is an approximation of what the law states and is not my own personal beliefs about how the law should work.

But I have not entered into a contract when I acquire most copyrighted materials I encounter 99% of the time. There are no terms presented, and so signature or explicit acknowledgment of acceptance of terms. You buy a CD or a DVD there is no contract on the outside of the box, unlike software EULA click-through licenses. There are no terms spelled out on the outside of a book (except for a few that do come shrink-wrapped in literal plastic license) or the outside of the New York Times. So generally no, I don't view nor are there legal precedents that apply contract law in these examples. The items in question are simply protected via copyright law.

Now, if I were presented with such terms I would have to think about whether or not I would except such terms. The DMCA can produce an implied contract in these cases because the protection of a copyrighted work with some sort of DRM implies that you will only used products licensed to access the DRM encumbered work. But even this is not always the case: a software DVD player may ask you to agree to the license terms but picking up a DVD player at Best Buy presents you with no such license agreement. In the latter case I guess that is it basically taken on faith that people will not open up and hack away at the innards of the DVD player.

I dont think you quite understood what was being conveyed. Simply put - if Sony could not protect the works of its artists then why would it bother selling CD's. Or even worse, if artists could not protect thier works then why would Sony bother paying them. I know you get the picture -

Yes, I do get the picture. My little "bombshell" mentioned earlier in the thread results from: I don't know if I like the picture, in fact, I am beginning to not like the picture at all.

I do, I really do (I'm sure some will say otherwise), understand the point and nature of copyright. In making a statement like: dissolve the copyright system, I am also making a statement with regard to the fundamental nature of businesses like Sony and their continued existence (at least in the CD sales business) or not. It should be clear after playing around with the notion of a copyright-less world in your head that the business an economic landscape would be very different that what it is today. I am not saying "get rid of copyrights and maintain the status quo". As to whether such a business and economic landscape would be "better" or "worse" by some set of arbitrary measures it will be both "better" and "worse", it will certainly be different. The important difference that I am after is the freedom (and liberty) of information. Yes, one can wax on about that new forms of information "hoarding" will emerge. That is all conjecture, but something resulting in hoarding will happen. The fundamental principle I would seek would be to lower the barrier to information sharing to zero while making it pretty expensive to hoard information. If there is no copyright protection then even hoarded information can be independently replicated with impunity. So those who hoard information in this theoretical world would be placing very big bets that the information they exploit for economic advantage does not get out into the wild. If the bet fails then do do their plans.

An individual cannot promote thier works world wide so they rely on companies that can. If there was no copyright then those companies would just steal thier works - You have noted that SOny still has presence in places like Ukraine where piracy is massive. SO I guess it is the artist who suffers and not the record company if we were to adopt piracy. Do you not agree?

Firstly, to be fair, I think poptones make the comment about the Ukraine, not me but I agreed, generally, with his statement.

Under the current system of copyright yes, I agree that entities, such as artists, that derive significant income from the sale of digital copies of works can be hurt when this system breaks down, such as through piracy.

I will restate what I have already said before: If I were to go after organizations that I deem are directly responsible for producing and adversarial relationship between them and the general consumer by getting laws enacted and utilizing technical means to impinge the rights of consumers, then I would certainly do my best to debase the value of the relationship of an artist with that organization. One way of doing that is to reduce the profitability of that relationship. Therefore, I return to my original premise that pain and suffering on the part of the artist would be a necessary aspect of any financial attack on the organization that represents them by selling copies of their works which bring about a reduction in the rights of the consumer.

Now, such action may not have to happen if the artist can find other ways, outside of their relationship with the said organization to engage the market. If the said artist engages the market in a way acceptable to me, which is to say that their engagement with the consumer does not impinge the rights of the consumer then I, personally, would see no reason to take punitive action towards the artist.

Another outcome is that the organization can change their ways as well so as to cease being adversarial and rights-tromping. Then all is well.

I know that your question and points here are in regard to my "punish by piracy" idea, but, it can also be related to my more radical idea of dissolving copyright. Digital copies of things have value asymptotic to zero. Embrace this by ending economic practices that rely on selling copies of stuff as it is intrinsically debased in the digital world. Now, poptones is going to have a field day with this, but I could care less: he and I have learned all we are ever going to learn from each other and we are simply going to have to agree to disagree.

So you hear an artists works and the degree of respect changes to a total disregard for thier wishes?

Well, if I'm hearing and/or seeing an artists work I am interacting with a product, not the producer of the product. Generally speaking if I don't like something I forget about it and move on. If I like it, and it is possible to buy a copy I may do so. Once I own the copy I may wish to re-encode the copy in some other way that is worthwhile to me. The artist's wishes at that point are irrelevant, as owner of the copy of the work I am the sole arbiter of what happens to that copy. I recognize no other authority that overrides this. I think what I do with a copy of an artists work, for personal use, that I legally own is symmetrically irrelevant to the artist. The artist produced a product of sufficient worth that I coughed up some dough to acquire ownership of a copy, legal-like, end of story. If the law does not support what I just said then I would seek to have the law changed to comply with my wishes in this regard.

I would hate to think that legal arguments are used in consideration of copyright. I would refer to Professor Posner's example for the reasons for property rights:- imagine a farmer in his field, he tills the soil, plants the seed and carefully grows the crops. On the night before harvest someone comes along and takes all of his crops. Because there are no property rights anyone can enter his land, anyone can take his goods and he sees no reward. The same is true of intellectual property. If a person cannot protect thier works then anyone could come along and use them - it means that a person cannot devote themselves to (spend thier time sowing the crop) thier art form. As a result all the popular bands would be obliterated because they would have to get jobs instead of playing music or performing.

Im sure you now agree that IP is required...

No I don't agree, not in the slightest: steal crops it is gone from where it was and is now some where else. Direct result of physical laws.

Make a copy of a digital file: Now there are two files in both places. Not subject to physical laws.

This is where I'm going to invoke the "gotta except" rule. This is how things like computers and the human brain work: we keep making copies of stuff. This is the nature of the beast. One has to work unbelievably hard (in the end infinitely hard) to make the world of computers (and eventually the human brain) work like the stuff we can hold in our hand. you can either accept this and we can move on or I'm going to be forced to do this every time.

finally
What group is being repressed

Consumers.

Jim, I’m not being trite or intentionally malicious when I say you give yourself far, far too much credit. I have learned nothing from you, for your arguments were long ago voiced and thoroughly squashed even by such folks as our kind host, the professor. It’s sad, really, you cannot fathom just how completely wrong you are about your imaginary "rights" in this world. Your arguments remind me of an angst riddled high schooler, annoyed that ‘the man” has finally arrived to remove him from his free ride on the corporate music machine.

poptones, the issue is exactly those "imaginary" rights you speak of: I want them to become real rights. I am seeking a change in the law that recognizes the rights I want as valid and worth protecting. I'm not swayed by arguments of authority. If even our host has dispatched my ideas to his satisfaction is of no consequence to me. Ultimately, I make no distinction between the groups "artists" or "producers" and "consumers": we are all equally capable of both producing and consuming. What I want is very simple to state: if someone produces something and I am able to legally obtain a copy of that thing then I retain all my freedoms to use that copy any way I see fit for my personal use. In this way I see the feedback loop that energizes and inspires artists and and people to produce new products we can all share. In the context of a world where copyright exists then the loop has to go: producer->consumer->(internal personal use of the copyrighted material)->consumer producing new non-copyrighted work or produces new work using copyrighted work with permission. I would like this loop to be easier to execute by removing copyright altogether but I will leave the dismantlement of the copyright system to subsequent generations. I will seek the modest goals I've stated elsewhere.

If Professor Lessig or you or others disagree, that is their right sir. It has no bearing on the fact that I still want to retain my freedoms to use copies of copyrighted works for personal use any way I deem worthwhile. I advocate this position to other as well, as you advocate yours and the Professor his.

I did not start out calling you a hypocrite or fool, and now: Your arguments remind me of an angst riddled high schooler, annoyed that "the man" has finally arrived to remove him from his free ride on the corporate music machine. yet at every opportunity you have taken pains to level such epithets at me. You don't know me from jack, yet you act as if you do. You have tried to put me down and shut me up by calling my ideas bullshit and others have been reduced to calling me an ass. All of these are your and others prerogative but in the end they are intimidation tactics intended to get me to see the light and fall in line. It is not working.

It is you who feels comfortable bantering about the words like "right" and "wrong", I do not feel these words really carry all that much meaning so I try to refrain from using them or will use them in quotes because they are non-constructive terms that are likely to get their user in trouble. We are not talking about mathematical proofs here using precise language that can be recursively traced back to a set of axioms generally agreed to be true. But again you wield the word "wrong" with some satisfaction towards me, can't say I understand why, but it is not having the effect you seek.

utterly wrong. Now there are two files in two places - what if the value fo the file depends on it remaining one file in one place?

Value is in the eye of the beholder. There can be value for a file in one place or two or many. I don't see this going anywhere.

It is no more your right to dictate the evolution of technology than to steal your fixes from your oppressor. Stop trying to blame the world for your problems living in it and get off the crack.

Wait, let me first take a toke on this pipe... There much better.

Again, I will reserve whatever actions I deem fit to accomplish the goals I have stated elsewhere in this thread to my satisfaction. Where I "blame" others I seek change. I do hold "others" accountable for engaging in actions that directly hurt me and the public at large. The price we pay is in the erosion of, at the very least, our fair use rights. The "others" can choose to stop doing these hurtful actions, I would be satisfied, but these "others" seem to want to ratchet-up their controls. I resist that and seek ways to punish such action.

As