tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post6311541875101156905..comments2023-09-07T04:13:08.133-04:00Comments on johndegen.com: copyright = oxygenUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-44639026534390258252007-12-19T21:25:00.000-05:002007-12-19T21:25:00.000-05:00"I'm sorry, Russell, but try as you may you can't ..."I'm sorry, Russell, but try as you may you can't make me feel guilty for advocating for strong (again, strong not stronger) copyright for writers in the digital world."<BR/><BR/>Well, we have looped full circle again.<BR/><BR/>You state you are advocating for copyright not to be weakened. I agree, and say that the worry is about WIPO Internet treaties. You say there is no threat here, that I should stop worrying, and clarify that your preference is Canada ratify the treaty. I ask you how that can possibly help you, and talk about how it will harm all creators. You state you have problems that must be solved. I state that current copyright law solves those problems, and state that WIPO Internet treaties will make problems worse. You state you are advocating for copyright not to be weakened. (Infinite loop).<BR/><BR/>I don't think any "royal commission on copyright" can solve the fact that we can't seem to get out of this infinite loop. I don't know if I will ever understand why you support the WIPO Internet treaties even though they will offer you nothing (and doesn't relate to your suggestion you are advocating for copyright not to be weakened), but that is the state we are in.Russell McOrmondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07186398284667525036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-44364279489688236752007-12-19T16:26:00.000-05:002007-12-19T16:26:00.000-05:00It is unfortunate, but those of us who have a resp...<I>It is unfortunate, but those of us who have a respect for fair copyright will also feel the brunt of the backlash which we have been trying so hard to help avoid.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm sorry, Russell, but try as you may you can't make me feel guilty for advocating for strong (again, strong not stronger) copyright for writers in the digital world. Everyone in this discussion has to accept some hard truths and stretch their understanding a bit. If this backlash you fear is unreasonable -- and some of us already feel it is -- then those lashing back will have to do some stretching as well. No one is exempt.<BR/><BR/>And gw, I believe, rather strongly, that there are all sorts of fair dealing ways you could build on the work of Tolkien and Rowling. See here:<BR/><BR/>http://www.theonion.com/content/news/nation_in_frenzy_about_littleJohnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04803855978550653817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-86879867967686155492007-12-19T16:02:00.000-05:002007-12-19T16:02:00.000-05:00Copyright can also be applied to formal expression...Copyright can also be applied to formal expressions, where there essentially is no difference between an idea and its expression. You cannot faithfully reproduce the idea without faithfully reproducing the expression. I admit that's a really rare case for most people, but it exists. I probably run into it more since my audience isn't human.<BR/><BR/>A more mundane example might be better. Copyright protects fictional characters and settings, and those are purely ideas.<BR/><BR/>Rowling had the idea for a school of some kind called "Hogwarts". Or something. I had the idea that Middle Earth and Rowling Land are actually different parts of the same world, with ensuing hilarity. That's not Rowling's idea or Tolkien's idea, that's my idea. Except, I'm not allowed to realize that idea. Or at least, I'm not allowed to do the same things with that idea that I can with some other idea I might have.<BR/><BR/>I know copyright does not protect all the ideas contained in a work, but it does protect some of them, so I think my question can still be addressed.<BR/><BR/>Also, I'm all too aware of how far the GPL is from being like the public domain. I don't use it, I just mentioned it because it is the only license that most "normal" people would have an outside chance of recognizing. I think you'd agree that the BSD and MIT licenses are as close as you can get without disclaiming copyright.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-57507490998714772252007-12-19T15:53:00.000-05:002007-12-19T15:53:00.000-05:00John,In the mail today I received a copy of Canadi...John,<BR/><BR/>In the mail today I received a copy of <I>Canadian Copyright: A Citizen’s Guide by Laura Murray and Sam Trosow</I> (Links on Laura's <A HREF="http://www.faircopyright.ca/" REL="nofollow">Fair Copyright website</A>)<BR/><BR/>When I get a new non-fiction book I like to jump to the Index at the end to get an overview of the types of topics that will be covered.<BR/><BR/>A line jumped out at me:<BR/><BR/>"McOrmond, Russell, 112"<BR/><BR/>On page 112 is a reference to a comment I made to the CopyCamp website talking about how DRM only decreases respect for copyright.<BR/><BR/>Laura and Sam put it this way:<BR/><BR/>"In other words, if consumers face hurdles to the reasonable use of materials that they have legally acquired, they will feel no compunction about leaping these hurdles, even if it becomes illegal to do so. McOrmond argues that DRM reduces consumers' respect for copyright."<BR/><BR/>Here is a key part of the debate which we seem to disagree on (both here, and in the other thread about the commission). The more radical the proposals being made to copyright (with paracopyright, AKA anti-circumvention, DRM, being outside of and beyond copyright), the more harsh the response will be (both against that specific policy, but inevitably against the concept of Copyright itself).<BR/><BR/>Geekwad is a software developer who, like most software developers, is seeing what he legitimately does (as a software author, and a hardware owner) coming under attack. We see draconian laws against our form of creativity being proposed (IE: all current or potential interpretations of the WIPO Internet treaties that have been released thus far).<BR/><BR/>I doubt if he would have such an emotional reaction against what you are saying if these proposals against our creativity had not been floated, and seemingly supported by people like you and Chris.<BR/><BR/>This is why I believe your "copyright=oxygen" suggestion can only backfire, and simply breed more disrespect for the interests and existing rights of authors.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>You reap what you sew, even if you don't realize you are sewing anything at all.<BR/><BR/>It is unfortunate, but those of us who have a respect for fair copyright will also feel the brunt of the backlash which we have been trying so hard to help avoid.Russell McOrmondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07186398284667525036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-2248329785845681952007-12-19T15:36:00.000-05:002007-12-19T15:36:00.000-05:00Apologies to John AND Russel for getting you confu...Apologies to John AND Russel for getting you confused.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-70758537228388451952007-12-19T15:31:00.000-05:002007-12-19T15:31:00.000-05:00Geekwad,I think John Degen will find it amusing th...Geekwad,<BR/><BR/>I think John Degen will find it amusing that you confused the two of us.<BR/><BR/>I too am a software author, and specifically a Free Software author. See <A HREF="http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/4457" REL="nofollow">CSIA (Canadian Software Innovation Alliance), CLUE, Bob Young and I</A> for some of the groups I'm involved in.<BR/><BR/><BR/>That clarification made, I think it only confuses the differences between public licenses and the public domain by using the phrase "de facto public domain". As an example, the GNU General Public License (GPL) is an aggressive license, and one that is <A HREF="http://gpl-violations.org/" REL="nofollow">agressively enforced</A>. While GPL-licensed software is available royalty-free, and the average person just using the software wouldn't be interested in doing anything that would violate that license, there are considerable obligations on those who make and distribute derivative works. Those legal obligations are enforced using the same laws and courts that a "proprietary" software owner would use.<BR/><BR/>One major difference is that a proprietary software owner would primarily be going after large numbers of private citizens violating their complex licenses, while publicly licensed software owners would be almost exclusively be going after a tiny number of commercial distributors (who have lawyers who could trivially understand the licenses).Russell McOrmondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07186398284667525036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-43451589340310696142007-12-19T15:26:00.000-05:002007-12-19T15:26:00.000-05:00geekwad,I think you illustrate an unfortunate and ...geekwad,<BR/><BR/>I think you illustrate an unfortunate and very common misconception about writers and their copyright.<BR/><BR/>you ask:<BR/><BR/>Why should being the first person to write or fix an idea come with the authority to dictate what others can do with it?<BR/><BR/>And I respond:<BR/><BR/>I don't know any writers who expect copyright on their ideas. Copyright applies to the expression of the idea -- the text. These are very different things. I fail to see how a limited monopoly over specific expression takes anything away from everyone else.<BR/><BR/>You see, Russell? As nuanced and specific as you want to be -- this idea that copyright locks away ideas persists.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04803855978550653817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-37454641461339611962007-12-19T15:04:00.000-05:002007-12-19T15:04:00.000-05:00Pardon, that was from me.Pardon, that was from me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-89730971495417340542007-12-19T15:03:00.000-05:002007-12-19T15:03:00.000-05:00Russel, the public domain "depends" on copyright t...Russel, the public domain "depends" on copyright the same way that freethinking "depends" on superstition.<BR/><BR/>I write software. By "de facto public domain" I mean public licenses (BSD, MIT, GPL), and occasionally the actual public domain. If it is a significant work, I will use a real license, usually the BSD license. If it is trivial, I'll simply preface it with, "I disclaim all rights to the following." (I am not interested in the legality of that.)<BR/><BR/>A question for you. You said you think the essence of copyright is, "I write it, I own it." How would you argue for that right? Why should being the first person to write or fix an idea come with the authority to dictate what others can do with it?<BR/><BR/>You seem to think this ownership is just a natural right, and copyright simply codifies that right. I strongly disagree. The natural right would be to exploit all of my knowledge. Copyright doesn't grant rights to creaters, it takes them away from everyone else. This is judged to be best for society overall -- not necessarily for creators or users. Since we're taking rights away from people, we have to be as selective as we can to still achieve the desired result.<BR/><BR/>I hope you will respond to the question because I think it might illustrate some fundamental differences in our starting values.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-23703954765685642092007-12-13T18:38:00.000-05:002007-12-13T18:38:00.000-05:00Happy, birthday, John, and thanks for keeping this...Happy, birthday, John, and thanks for keeping this conversation going.<BR/><BR/>My last comment seems to again have disappeared into the moderation filter, which is a shame, but I'm still following along and learning all the time !Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-85401034425459835942007-12-13T15:30:00.000-05:002007-12-13T15:30:00.000-05:00John,Conversations can wait until you return. My ...John,<BR/><BR/>Conversations can wait until you return. My advise to you would be to keep comments on moderation, and just do what you did which is indicate that you won't be able to approve them for a while.<BR/><BR/>Thanks, and will continue this later.<BR/><BR/>As to involving the public, I blogged about that earlier today.<BR/><BR/>Canadians have already said NO to WIPO Internet treaty ratification!<BR/>http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/4428<BR/><BR/>Clearly the government is ignoring the views of Canadians, so getting more people involved is necessary. The time for being nuanced is gone when the government ignores all those nuances.<BR/><BR/>We can discuss other things, but given that the only thing we knew about the bill was WIPO Internet treaty ratification, that was the only thing we could support or oppose that would make sense. Everything else (from all sides of the debate) was really premature or off-topic in the context of the upcoming bill.Russell McOrmondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07186398284667525036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-44283011403552236502007-12-13T15:21:00.000-05:002007-12-13T15:21:00.000-05:00I'm going away from this blog for awhile -- to cel...I'm going away from this blog for awhile -- to celebrate my birthday, and take care of my kids for the weekend. <BR/><BR/>To make sure any talk I miss gets recorded, I'll remove the moderation from my comment streams. I apologize if that results in SPAM, which can happen with this service.<BR/><BR/>cheers,<BR/><BR/>--jdJohnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04803855978550653817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-19067669055744127232007-12-13T15:08:00.000-05:002007-12-13T15:08:00.000-05:00Russell,You have completely misread my Facebook co...Russell,<BR/><BR/>You have completely misread my Facebook comment, which makes me think others have as well.<BR/><BR/>The remark about stupid artists and adding value and relevance were what we users of copyright like to call <I>references to other works</I>, building our own creativity out of what older creators have left for us. In other words, I was quoting almost word for word from other commenters on that stream. It had nothing to do with Charlie, whom I thanked in earnest for raising the topic of the songwriters' proposal.<BR/><BR/>The point of my quotations is to once again showcase the extremism on the user rights side. I say again that neither Doctorow nor Geist goes anywhere near far enough toward tempering that extremism. In fact, in my opinion, they are using it to spread the word on this bill -- a practice I find ethically reprehensible, and in this case distinctly anti-democratic.<BR/><BR/>I completely agree with you that we need to stop making broad statements -- like for instance <I>this is about them taking our freedom away!</I>, <I>the government is responding to pressure from their American masters!</I>, etc. <BR/><BR/>How do we get down to brass tacks? We introduce legislation and then force this minority government to work with a divided Parliament to pass something that works for all Canadians.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04803855978550653817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-52050601770246001422007-12-13T14:22:00.000-05:002007-12-13T14:22:00.000-05:00If you want to have a nuanced debate, then put for...If you want to have a nuanced debate, then put forward a nuanced position. Your most recent comment on Facebook against fellow novelist Charlie Angus was anything but nuanced. There was absolutely nothing he said that suggested that you "stupid artists will now go away and try to figure out whether or not we add value or relevance."<BR/><BR/>That is about as nuanced as suggesting amputation as a solution to a paper cut.<BR/><BR/>When I am talking about the rights of technology owners, I can be seen as a Consumers advocate as well as the actual owners of technology are considered "consumers" of that technology. This is how I understand Cory's commentary, not as someone trying to revoke existing copyright related rights.<BR/><BR/><BR/>While the WIPO Internet treaties confuse technology ownership issues with traditional copyright issues, I see them as separate issues. My belief in IT property rights does imply limits on adding new rights to copyright holders (IE: that copyright holders should *not* have the exclusive right to choose brands of access devices), but is otherwise entirely separate.Russell McOrmondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07186398284667525036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-6312250811054253472007-12-13T14:11:00.000-05:002007-12-13T14:11:00.000-05:00John,We shouldn't think you hate our freedom, any ...John,<BR/><BR/>We shouldn't think you hate our freedom, any more than you should think that we disrespect your copyright related creators' rights.<BR/><BR/>Much of this discussion is based on people talking about entirely different things, and only appearing to disagree with each other.<BR/><BR/>Only when we move away from these big vague philosophical statements down to actual concrete policies (exact proposals to deal with educational use of the Internet, modern communications technology, on-demand electronic publishing, etc) can we ever determine where we agree or disagree.<BR/><BR/>Russell "I am a creator's rights advocate first, and a users' rights advocate second" McOrmondRussell McOrmondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07186398284667525036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-47291106632145684672007-12-13T13:08:00.000-05:002007-12-13T13:08:00.000-05:00Russell,There's absolutely nothing mysterious abou...Russell,<BR/><BR/>There's absolutely nothing mysterious about your perception that I am putting Cory D. and Steven P. or any other fellow creator on the other side of anything. It is because this is a complex discussion and not something that can be easily defined by answering the question <I>which side are you on?</I> I'm on both sides, er, all three sides. You actually know that, so making suggestions about me not understanding the sides is starting to look like something other than clumsiness.<BR/><BR/>My current blog posting is all about how I agree with Cory Doctorow on some things. I like to think I agree with him on a lot of things. I've been a fan of Page's music and his ideas on the importance of fans for a very long time. But, I do think I can still have nuanced disagreements with these folks. Cory calls himself a consumer advocate, by the way, so I think his user rights ideas on consumerism are fair game, no?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04803855978550653817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-70394874866538819612007-12-13T12:56:00.000-05:002007-12-13T12:56:00.000-05:00David Sarnoff,Thanks for the enigmatic aphorism.Cl...David Sarnoff,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the enigmatic aphorism.<BR/><BR/>Clearly, no copyright law can be a one-size fits all proposition. I do so hope you're not saying that I <I> hate your freedom.</I>Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04803855978550653817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-57758550049536382042007-12-13T12:45:00.000-05:002007-12-13T12:45:00.000-05:00Freedom is the oxygen without which science cannot...Freedom is the oxygen without which science cannot breathe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-83394861858412441512007-12-11T16:25:00.000-05:002007-12-11T16:25:00.000-05:00I have to bite my tongue every time you say "users...I have to bite my tongue every time you say "users rights". You complain that people start conversations with you thinking you are allied with the RIAA, MPAA and Microsoft, and yet you seem to define creators who have opinions different than you as being from a different side of the debate (Some "users rights" side you have a personal definition of).<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>My understanding was that the event this weekend in Calgary was largely attended by creators. The primary organizer is a software engineer and documentary film maker, most of the publicity came from Cory Doctorow (A science fiction author!), and there were visual artists, musicians, writers, and others.<BR/><BR/>Many people reading this are going to wonder why you put people like Cory Doctorow (a science fiction author) and Steven Page (famous singer/songwriter) as being on some "other" side of the copyright debate. Many of us believe that these individuals represent the interests of creators far better than the groups who go to parliament as "creator groups".Russell McOrmondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07186398284667525036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-77751138622092640652007-12-11T16:17:00.000-05:002007-12-11T16:17:00.000-05:00John,No, it is not me in disguise. While I've bee...John,<BR/><BR/>No, it is not me in disguise. While I've been accused of trying to promote my name too much, this is the first time I've been accused of being anonymous ;-)<BR/><BR/>In fact, I haven't really been reading the comments written by 'anonymous' as I tend to only want to have conversations with people acting as Citizens. Aliases/anonymous/etc makes conversations relatively useless to me.<BR/><BR/>You also know that I think of myself as a creator first, and an audience second, and when I personally talk about "users rights" I'm talking about either follow-on creators' rights (which we both agree with -- you likely also support a parody exception) or required limits to copyright to protect the privacy or property rights of audiences (IE: Fair Dealings to allow time/space/device shifting, right to circumvent DRM for non-infringing purposes, no restrictions on devices, etc).<BR/><BR/>When I do glance at the threat it seems like Anonymous and you are talking about entirely different things. Hard to have a conversation that way.Russell McOrmondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07186398284667525036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-5341526742479120062007-12-11T15:32:00.000-05:002007-12-11T15:32:00.000-05:00fa,I don't see you as the enemy -- just as a stran...fa,<BR/><BR/>I don't see you as the enemy -- just as a strange and mysterious, <B>anonymous</B> poster I more and more believe is Russell McOrmond writing in disguise. If not, you two should get together. You're like long lost twins.<BR/><BR/>Please don't position me as starting from somewhere other than <I>freedom of expression is a good thing</I>. I do too much work on that file every day of my life to have you pretend it's somehow not on my radar. It's this kind of ridiculously inaccurate rhetoric that is turning the current user rights protest into a circus. <B>Look! Jim Prentice was surrounded by a mob and he appeared nervous! That proves he's in the pockets of American corporations!</B><BR/><BR/>Freedom of expression cannot be used as the one-size-fits-all rallying cry for everything consumers want to do with their iPods.<BR/><BR/>We do use speed limiters, on commercial trucks, and it's highly illegal to tamper with them, for very good reasons that an informed society does not seem to object to. For the rest of us, we use enforcement, which is also accepted. In Ontario, if you go fifty K over the limit, they take your tangible property away from you. Do you disagree with that?<BR/><BR/>You keep saying "make whatever copies you like, but keep them to yourself," as if that's what we're talking about. No-one I read on the <I>user</I> side is actually asking to do just that. And I quote from <A HREF="http://tylerkinch.com/" REL="nofollow">Kinch blog</A>, one of your own (maybe even you?????):<BR/><BR/><I>They (the Canadian Music Creators Coalition) want to go after the people making profits off of their music illegally, but they don’t want to sue fans that are simply ripping music of their CDs and putting in on their iPod or sharing it with some friends.</I><BR/><BR/>I'd bet, even if you actually talked to the CMCC, they'd want a clearer defintiion of what is meant by "some friends." Again, don't minimize the law into impotence.<BR/><BR/>Finally, a question for all the anonymouses out there -- without strong copyright law, how exactly would the CMCC "go after the people making profits off of their music illegally"?<BR/><BR/>Gosh, how would we even be able to define what is illegal without laws?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04803855978550653817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-50224338237527239632007-12-11T13:55:00.000-05:002007-12-11T13:55:00.000-05:00"upside-down logic" ? I'm just starting from a dif..."upside-down logic" ? I'm just starting from a different point than you. I'm starting from "freedom of expressions is a good thing", "the free market is a good thing", "tangible property rights are a good thing" and "government-granted monopolies are a bad thing, but sometimes necessary". Hence, copyright is a necessary evil, and we should have the bare minimum necessary to achieve its objectives. Of course I understand that that's not where you're starting from.<BR/><BR/>If I had to learn to play the guitar just to go about my daily life, yes, I'd complaining about how hard it is! I don't want to be a lawyer (or professional guitar player). I shouldn't need to get a law degree to know what I can and can't do with the things I buy. It should be simple enough to get right. Hence my idea of "make whatever copies you like, but keep them to yourself".<BR/><BR/>As for speed limits, although I don't think it's a realistic analogy, this is your playground, so I'll play your game. Lots of people ignore speed limits. ok. So do we blindly increase them ? No. Equally, we don't blindly <I>decrease</I> them, right ? Ideally, we do some kind of study to find the optimum speed limit for each road (recognising that different speed limits are appropriate for different roads). So where are the studies on the optimum level of copyright ? Very few and far between (I think I have come across one, but I can't find it at the moment).<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, speed limits <I>have</I> changed as technology has advanced. We no longer have to have a person with a flag walking in front of our cars, for example, despite the fact that that system worked well when cars first appeared.<BR/><BR/>Now, this does tie in nicely to DRM. It's easy to enforce the speed limit - just fit a speed limiter to every car and prohibit tinkering with it. Why don't we do this ? Because it is an unreasonable interference with people's tangible property rights.<BR/><BR/>For the more general DRM stuff, it's tough to argue with regards to text, for several reasons. DRM on text is just so trivial to overcome (re-typing, scanning and OCR, etc) and there are enough competing players and formats that there is room for customer choice to have an effect. Unfortunately, those aren't true for movies (music falls somewhere between the two).<BR/><BR/>Yes, I think saying "tinkering with X is illegal" legitimises X, and might make people who hadn't previously considered using X now consider it. I'm trying hard to come with an example, and failing miserably. The government just doesn't often tell us what we can and can't do to the things we buy. The closest I can come up with is tampering with the odometer in your car, but there the odometer is mandatory.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and I thought I'd made my stake clear - I do create copyrighted works for a living, but I try to represent the users' point of view in copyright debates.<BR/><BR/>And now I'm going to write to my provincial minister of education to urge them not to press for an education exemption. You see, I'm really not the enemy here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-46041582277166531952007-12-10T15:25:00.000-05:002007-12-10T15:25:00.000-05:00fa,I have to say -- the combination of your upside...fa,<BR/><BR/>I have to say -- the combination of your upside-down logic, and the fact that you insist on no-one knowing who you are and what is your stake in this debate has become quite tiresome. You celebrate the ease of digital technology, yet can't seem to get your head around typing your own name into a comment box. <BR/><BR/>One of my points about the speed limit is precisely that it is easy to understand -- yet everyone breaks it anyways. But that is not a good enough reason to change or abandon the law, because whether or not people <I>want</I> to go faster there are very good reasons they shouldn't go faster. Refusing to see the analogy is different from disproving it. And really, you sound like a teenager tired of trying to learn guitar. This is too difficult to do -- I want to throw it away.<BR/><BR/>I've said before and I'll say again -- don't minimize the law to the point of neutering it. Otherwise, what's the point of having a law at all.<BR/><BR/>Other than the fair-dealing chill I've already spoken out against, what in the current copyright law stops a musician or film-maker from building on the work of other (Russell would say older) creators in their field? I listen to songs and watch films all the time that reference, pay homage to, sample and quote from their predecessors, all of which are legal within limits. Yes, absolutely, threats of litigation make it scary and in many cases financially unviable to try and and do these things, but that is NOT the current law's fault -- that is the fault of a judicial process that has so far refused to protect these fair dealing rights in a meaningful way. <BR/><BR/>Your point about the locks simply baffles me. You say <I>I'm encouraging</I> people to lock things up by making it illegal to break locks? The two things have nothing actual to do with each other. I encourage everyone to share their food, but I think going into someone else's cupboard without permission should be illegal.<BR/><BR/>And yes, Russell (because I hear you clearing your throat) putting a lock on someone else's cupboard when they're not looking, or selling food that contaminates all the other food in the cupboard should <I>also</I> be illegal.<BR/><BR/>You know what <I>actually</I> discourages the locking up of things? Respect for the ownership of the things.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04803855978550653817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-65357221248492354832007-12-10T14:16:00.000-05:002007-12-10T14:16:00.000-05:00What a wonderful world if would be if the Copyrigh...What a wonderful world if would be if the Copyright Act were as simple to understand as the speed limit ! Everybody understands the speed limit and knows what it makes legal and illegal. People may disagree about whether the number is right or not, but that's as far as it goes. With copyright, I see arguments every day about what aspect of peer-to-peer filesharing is legal, whether fan fiction is currently legal or not, and the like. Plenty of people who try to find out what's legal just give up and decide to "not worry about it" (and yes, plenty more don't even try to find out). Hence, if you make it easy to understand, and easy to comply with, you'll get increased "respect for copyright". If the speed limit weren't posted, and varied by the time of day, number of people in the car, and the day of the week the driver were born on, maybe your analogy would work.<BR/><BR/>It's actually the assumptions behind the copyright act that are no longer true that has lead to the situation we have today. "Reproduction" is no longer the good indication of "intent to distribute" that it was when it was added as an exclusive right. That's why I find it easy to advocate bringing the law up to date in this respect. Think "whoops ! When we wrote that, we assumed that you'd need to spend tens of thousands of dollars on specialised hardware in order to make a copy, which clearly isn't true any more. Better fix that..."<BR/><BR/>Yep, as I said, text is easy to re-create. Video, music, and other forms of creativity aren't. You mostly care about text, where "locking it up" is less harmful (to the creators of future) works and easier to overcome.<BR/><BR/>I didn't forget that you're advocating for a world without copy-protection. You do seem to see that there is harm in having everything locked up. What I don't understand is why you'd then encourage people to lock it up, by making it illegal to break those locks. Surely giving legal legitimacy to those locks says "they are a good thing" rather than discouraging their use.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-29168151340257879802007-12-10T10:52:00.000-05:002007-12-10T10:52:00.000-05:00fa,Your latest comment reminds me of some opinion ...fa,<BR/><BR/>Your latest comment reminds me of some opinion I heard on the radio this weekend. <I>Everyone routinely goes well over the posted 100 km/hr highway speed limit, therefore the speed limit is too low. Clearly speeding is an everyday activity for most citizens, so it's unfair to criminalize it.</I><BR/><BR/>I find the argumnet unconvincing, and not just because some speeding jerk cut me off this morning. <BR/><BR/>Copyright law has not acted upon existing activity to make it illegal. That is simply false logic. New activities have arisen that are requesting exemption from existing law -- a completely different scenario from what you describe, and one that requires careful consideration and negotiation to make sure the law is not neutered. What I hear you saying is <I>change the speed limit to 140 km/hr, and you'll see fewer people speeding and more respect for the law.</I> Having driven the autobahn, I really doubt it.<BR/><BR/>As someone who makes part of my living from literary criticism, I can assure you that in the actual practice of book reviewing, there is nothing onerous about retyping snippets of text -- in fact, it is generally accepted that re-typing, rather than cutting and pasting, enhances <I>understanding</I> of the text. <BR/><BR/>Besides, you seem to forget I am advocating for a world where digital text is not copy-locked yet still respected. In such a world, the lazy book reviewer could quite legally cut and paste fair dealing segments to her heart's content.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04803855978550653817noreply@blogger.com