|
Edited on Fri Apr-09-04 11:24 AM by kgfnally
File sharing is like the atomic bomb: now that it's been invented (and, really, P2P may be a 'new' technology but it's a rather old idea; IRC, for example, has been capable of Direct Client to Client, or DCC, transfers for over a decade now), you cannot stuff it back into the bag. No matter how much legislation is written, there will always be people- such as myself- who believe that since the hard disk is composed of physical elements, much as one's front yard is composed of single blades of grass, and since those physical elements are owned without copyright by me, I should be able to arrange those elements in any way I desire. If doing so creates a pattern in the grass that someone else previously created, tough titty- it's still the 'grass in my yard', so to speak, and I can 'mow' it in any way I please. That's how I feel about the microscopic parts of a hard disk that the data is actually stored upon; I own those portions of the drive, too, and I can arrange them in any way I please; that is one of the fundamental rights of ownership. Copyright ownership does not imbue any expectation that the material in question will never be copied, it only provides a statutory remedy should the holder of the copyright choose to pursue "damages".
Nor is copyright infringement theft; I know of no copyright infringement case in which the original 'owner' is deprived of previously existing property. Copyright infringement is not theft, and I'm getting REAL tired of it being characterized as such.
I'm also getting sick of corporations suing individuals- a "right" of personhood that no corporation should have- for money that the corporation did not make and would never have made. I do indeed believe that the likelihood of the infringer ever in the future actually purchasing the product in question should enter into the copyright infringement case. In other words, if the person accused of copyright infringement can show that they never would have actually purchased the product in question, there should be no suit.
IOW, I'm getting tired of hearing about corporations suing people for money they might have made.
Unless and until we get the old dinosaurs out of Congress (by these I mean the people who have never dealt with computers on the end-user level we chattel do), we will never see sensible computing legislation. To really see how much of a threat technological ignorance can be, go Google 'Palladium' +DRM +Longhorn and see what you come up with.
If I come across as being contemptuous of modern day copyright law, it's because I am. Ninety years is far, far too long for a copyright to be valid, yet we have not only that on the books, but it's now up to 120 years- far beyond the lifetime of almost everyone on the planet. How, exactly, does such a long time period facilitate the entrance of modern day copyrighted works into the public domain?
I predict that there will never be a modern Hollywood movie or commercial piece of computer software entered into the public domain; Both Windows and The Matrix will likely never be the property of the people; corporate powers have usurped our system of eventual free distribution to such an extent that the people have lost the benefits of copyright, leaving us with only the punishments if we violate that system as our reward- unless we're lucky or talented enough to own an officially copyrighted work. However, copyright was never intended to be a permenant cash cow to the copyright holder; the system was created to facilitate the entry of popular works into the public domain, and was set up to first give the opportunity to make money and fame to the holder, and then, after a limited time, to allow it to be freely enjoyed by others. The key word there is free; that concept need not be related to money. Corporations, however, are always concerned about the bottom line first, then the bottom line, and after that, the bottom line; public freedom is antithetical to that. Thus, modern day copyright.
We must revert our copyright laws back to what they originally were. If that were the case, Microsoft Windows 3.1 would likely be nearly public domain today; that won't ever happen under current law. Now, tell me.... doesn't such a situation inherently create a piracy "problem"? We have no expectation that copyrighted works today will ever appear in the public domain; filesharing networks are one of the few possible answers to this dilemma.
No amount of legislation short of restoring a functioning public domain will change that.
|