SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
takyon
on Wednesday April 08 2015, @10:30AM
from the I-have-a-vision-for-SIGNAL-LOST dept.
from the I-have-a-vision-for-SIGNAL-LOST dept.
Not too long ago both Rand and Ron Paul were pushing a copyright maximalist agenda. Today the chickens have come home to roost. Rand Paul's presidential announcement has been blocked by a copyright claim from Warner Music Group due to a clip of a song used in the announcement. Even more apropos of the (less and less as time goes by) libertarian-leaning Republican candidate, it wasn't a DMCA takedown raining on his parade, but the purely private ContentID system that Youtube put in place in order to appease the copyright cartel.
Here is a transcript of Rand Paul's announcement.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Rand Paul Censored by Youtube ContentID Copyright Enforcement System
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 99 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Either I'm dead or my watch has stopped.
-- Groucho Marx's last words
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @11:48AM
> Reading the link, it appears that no, the Rands aren't copyright maximalists.
> ...
> "what is considered to be in the public domain should be greatly expanded."
No, you have that backwards. That is not one of their tenets, it is a belief they are criticizing. They want to do the reverse of that.
Here's the manifesto itself [campaignforliberty.org] (unpublished at the time the linked articles were written).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @12:00PM
Among the most insidious are government attempts to control and regulate competition, infrastructure, privacy, and intellectual property.
Yes, "intellectual property" (a propaganda term) is truly an example of the free market at work.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @01:03PM
What is your preferred term?
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @01:25PM
I prefer to speak about whatever is under discussion, whether that be copyrights, patents, or trademarks. The term "intellectual property" makes it seem as if it is similar to real property, but this is mere propaganda designed to confuse those that haven't researched the matter (the general public).
(Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Wednesday April 08 2015, @09:48PM
The term "intellectual property" makes it seem as if it is similar to real property
Which is an accurate thing to say.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @11:23PM
Real property is both rivalrous and excludable. Intellectual property is not.
The entire concept of capitalism rests on those two characteristics of property.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 09 2015, @04:20AM
Real property is both rivalrous and excludable.
Except when it's not, of course. A sign, for example, is real property, but use by someone doesn't prevent use by others (hence, is not rivalrous) nor is it excludable, if it happens to be in public view. And it's worth noting the obvious that a lot of intellectual property is both rivalrous and excludable. I can't just go write my own Lord of the Rings sequel and profit from it like the Tolkien estate could.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @07:52AM
Where's the -1 Dense as Dogshit mod option when you need it?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 09 2015, @01:03PM
To recap this thread, an earlier AC poster claimed that "intellectual property" was a propaganda term because it wasn't "similar" to real property. I merely note that IP is real property for obvious reasons. Why argue something that with a little thought you can see is false? There is no point to the argument.
(Score: 2) by monster on Friday April 10 2015, @09:14AM
The meaning of the sign is neither rivalrous nor excludable, in the same way the red color in your car is neither rivalrous nor excludable to others. The object (sign in one case, car in the other) is rivalrous and excludable.
As for intellectual property being rivalrous and excludable, I think you are wrong: Just by writing your Lord of the Rings sequel you haven't taken anything away from Tolkien state. You could theoretically harm it by distributing your sequel, but even that is dubious (see fanfic, for example, or how modern covers also increase sales of old songs) and that reasoning is a dangerous path in its own way: An argument that your sequel harms Tolkien state's sequels could be used likewise in other industries to quite over the top results, like from an automaker about other automakers (by making good cars they harm my chances to sell my average cars!)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 10 2015, @09:40AM
The meaning of the sign is neither rivalrous nor excludable
The correct term here is "use" not "meaning". We thus eliminate your first argument.
As for intellectual property being rivalrous and excludable, I think you are wrong: Just by writing your Lord of the Rings sequel you haven't taken anything away from Tolkien state.
First, note that I will subject to lawsuits from the Tolkien estate which can have a penalty large enough that I can't profit from the endeavor. That creates the rivalrous and excludable nature of this particular copyright. Focusing on the degree of harm that my efforts can cause, is a different matter than consideration of whether something is effectively property or not.
(Score: 2) by monster on Friday April 10 2015, @09:58AM
A sign is useless unless there's and associated meaning to it like "Stop", "Emergency exit" or "Beware of the dog" for example, but given that you are dismissing the whole argument with just a reference to incorrect use of terms I think you are just deflecting the matter entirely, and that your debating process seems to contain little sportmanship.
So your argument is that it is property because the law says so, and the law must say so because it is property. I detect a small chicken and egg problem...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 10 2015, @11:05AM
but given that you are dismissing the whole argument with just a reference to incorrect use of terms I think you are just deflecting the matter entirely, and that your debating process seems to contain little sportmanship.
It's not my job to think for you. The problem here is that you need to up your game. Come up with a reasoned argument that can't be dismissed so easily.
So your argument is that it is property because the law says so, and the law must say so because it is property. I detect a small chicken and egg problem...
The law exists so the chicken and egg problem is resolved.
(Score: 2) by monster on Friday April 10 2015, @12:52PM
I've already presented an argument and you dismissed it solely because for you the correct term is "use" and not "meaning", so I rest my case. I'm not going to change it just because you don't like my words. You are not debating, you are just trolling.
No, it's not, it's just a statement of fact (the law exists) and not a rational cause for the existence of such property (IP). Otherwise, slavery should still be legal, since there was a law that said that some people were property and so it wasn't correct to abolish it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 10 2015, @01:12PM
I've already presented an argument and you dismissed it solely because for you the correct term is "use" and not "meaning", so I rest my case.
And you rest your case why? My point destroys your argument. A sign's meaning is in its use which is what I've been speaking of all along.
No, it's not, it's just a statement of fact (the law exists) and not a rational cause for the existence of such property (IP).
Exactly. Chicken and egg is resolved when the fact of either's existence is determined. Since the law exists, the chicken and egg problem is resolved.
I really don't get what you are trying to argue here. The issues you brought up have been trivial and uninteresting.
(Score: 2) by monster on Friday April 10 2015, @01:55PM
Then follow up and show how the use of the sign is rivalrous or excludable. Unless you show how it can be, you haven't destroyed anything, just nitpicked about words.
Since you seem to be so away from the discussion, I'll use an schematic:
You (in response to an AC): "And it's worth noting the obvious that a lot of intellectual property is both rivalrous and excludable. I can't just go write my own Lord of the Rings sequel and profit from it like the Tolkien estate could."
Me: "You creating a sequel wouldn't deprive Tolkien state of its belongings, so it doesn't fit the nature of property"
You: "The fact that Tolkien state would sue me creates the rivalrous and excludable nature. Also, focusing on the degree of harm that my efforts can cause, is a different matter than consideration of whether something is effectively property or not."
Me: "So you are justifying IP with the argument because the law says so"
You: "Yes"
Me: "That's not a justification, that's just a statement of current law. It could be used to justify anything, as long as somebody gets to put it in a law".
You: "Since the law exists, the matter is resolved"
Both me and the AC don't need you to know that IP is in the law. What both are arguing is if it should exist at all, given its radically different nature from physical property and that any similarity is brought by enforcement of arbitrary rules to cause scarcity in what would otherwise be an infinitely available good.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday April 11 2015, @01:01AM
Then follow up and show how the use of the sign is rivalrous or excludable.
I already stated at the beginning that it wasn't. In other words, we have real property which isn't rivalrous or excludable in its intended use. That was the whole point of my example.
Both me and the AC don't need you to know that IP is in the law. What both are arguing is if it should exist at all, given its radically different nature from physical property and that any similarity is brought by enforcement of arbitrary rules to cause scarcity in what would otherwise be an infinitely available good.
So what? You just acknowledged that IP is at the least similar to real property due to these rules (which aren't arbitrary BTW). And property as a whole tends to require a lot of rules in order to exist. Most people can't maintain their own bands of thugs to protect their property from all the other bands of thugs. To create property and other "civil rights" one needs some sort of "arbitrary rules" and sufficiently negative consequence to breaking those rules.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @11:18PM
Dense as dogshit is right.
Even if your specious logic were actually a coherent proof that a sign is not rivalrous or excludable ... at best you've found a minor corner case that says nothing about the general case. No economist in the world would agree with your side of the argument. Assburgers does not make you good at understanding economics because economics is a field of psychology.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 12 2015, @03:02AM
Even if your specious logic were actually a coherent proof that a sign is not rivalrous or excludable ...
Which it is for its normal use. Hence, why I used it as an example.
at best you've found a minor corner case that says nothing about the general case
A corner case which happens to be considered real property and which is really common in today's societies. A person who isn't blind or living on their own in deep wilderness can't go a day without running into a number of such signs.
No economist in the world would agree with your side of the argument.
I don't need their agreement, I just need to be right.
Assburgers does not make you good at understanding economics because economics is a field of psychology.
Economics isn't a field of psychology. Psychology shares some aspects with economics, but you are attempting to anthropomorphize economics. I can come up with a number of economics examples from the natural world, such as pollination or carcass feeding which usually don't involve humans and hence, for which psychology (of the traditional human-oriented sort) is of very limited usefulness in discussing the motives and behavior of the participants. Similarly, I can look at examples from the computer world such as high frequency trading which involve humans distantly, but which happen at scales that can't involve human psychology.
Further, economics activities are fundamentally objective. We may not fully understand the motives or valuation beliefs of the participants in an economic system without understanding their psychology, but we can observe their actions. And an economics system is far more than the behavior of the individual participants. It's also the infrastructure and rules of trade, negotiation, production, and consumption.
But the psychology argument is just another non sequitur since it doesn't matter to our argument whether economics is a subfield of psychology or not. An assertion was made that IP was not similar to real property. The assertion was backed by the claim that IP was not rivalrous or excludable. That right there excludes the need for psychology. We're just discussing an objective, non-human behavior aspect of IP.
When I pointed out that the assertion was false, then you continue to insist otherwise. I don't know why since IP laws do create the necessary conditions to consider it similar to real property. Some of your other arguments are particularly nonsensical, such as claiming that the meaning of the sign is somehow more relevant to property classification than its use is which is just a pointless semantics game. Or claiming that there is a "chicken and egg" problem when neither the initial chicken or egg are hard to come by. We can actually look at the past few centuries of the evolution of such laws and such IP to see how they came about. And creating the intellectual property or the rules to protect that intellectual property just aren't that hard.
(Score: 2) by monster on Monday April 13 2015, @01:20PM
First, the AC is not me. I'm still trying to have a discussion and not namecalling.
Second, as I have already stated, that a law says something doesn't mean that it is that way in the real world. Some state laws saying that Pi was exactly 3 are a prime example of what I'm trying to say: Laws don't change reality, they just stablish rules, so the fact that there already are IP laws does nil to justify the moral standing of such laws and are just a "Because I say so" kind of argument, like they were in other times for slavery or other matters.
Third, since we can't even agree about what we are discussing, I see little reason to continue this back a and forth. Have a nice day.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 13 2015, @01:41PM
Second, as I have already stated, that a law says something doesn't mean that it is that way in the real world.
In this case, it does. The rules matter because there are large financial liabilities associated with violating IP law. A nimble, nothing-to-lose pirate can work around that. A major corporation which owes its exists to the confines of law can't.
so the fact that there already are IP laws does nil to justify the moral standing of such laws and are just a "Because I say so" kind of argument
An enforceable "Because I say so" satisfies the preconditions for my arguments. Moral standing is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. IP doesn't become more or less rivalrous and excludable just because the moral standing is not as justified as you would like.
(Score: 2) by monster on Monday April 13 2015, @04:23PM
Like I said, that was the case with slavery, too. There were large financial liabilities associated with slavery in the South. That fact doesn't justify slavery.
Moral standing is everything in this discussion. Otherwise, it's just an example of "Those who own the guns make the rules".
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 14 2015, @08:59AM
Like I said, that was the case with slavery, too. There were large financial liabilities associated with slavery in the South.
The financial liabilities of violating IP law scale with profit. If I make a billion dollars by illegally selling a song for which I don't have the copyright, I can be fined for the full amount of my profit and then some. That renders the effort unprofitable except for those with little to seize by a court. Meanwhile early 19th century slavers just had to cover the costs of their holdings. They were quite profitable.
That fact doesn't justify slavery.
If you're looking for a justification for slavery, you'll have to look elsewhere. I don't care about it since it is completely off topic and irrelevant.
Moral standing is everything in this discussion.
Of course, it's not.
Otherwise, it's just an example of "Those who own the guns make the rules".
And this is why. The rules were made by people with guns. Since, we have the example of the latter, we don't need to care whether it is an example of the former "moral standing" category.
(Score: 2) by monster on Monday April 13 2015, @01:09PM
Sigh... The item you have (the sign) is rivalrous and excludable. If I take it away, you don't have it anymore. It doesn't matter that you can get another sign with the same use. A $100 bill also has a use, if you lose one you may get another and even in that case it's rivalrous and excludable. That's why your example makes no sense and why I was arguing that whatever words you use the facts about physical items remain.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 13 2015, @01:23PM
What makes the sign analogy relevant is that I notice a conflation of use with ownership. The sign like IP has use that is not rivalrous and excludable. But like IP ownership is rivalrous and excludable.
(Score: 2) by monster on Monday April 13 2015, @04:21PM
So your example of a physical item which is not rivalrous and not excludable was a sign, I showed you that what is not rivalrous and not excludable about it is its use (per your words) and not the item and your response is to avoid the matter and return to IP. Seems like your example backfired badly, IMHO.
An attorney's bar can also be taken away and that fact doesn't make it more property-like, just shows the fact that it is a state issued permit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @02:35AM
No. It is someone claiming ownership over a mere idea, or an implementation of a specific idea. It's when someone tries to control *your* physical property because they think they can own some idea. No harm comes from copying 'their' data, either. Lack of gain is not harm. How can certain bits on a hard drive that belongs to me not also belong to me? Why can I not use my own equipment to copy data that exists on said equipment and give it out to others?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 09 2015, @01:12PM
It's when someone tries to control *your* physical property because they think they can own some idea.
And under the current legal regime, they can succeed at that task.
No harm comes from copying 'their' data, either. Lack of gain is not harm.
Opportunity cost is harm. So is losing valuable data to a competitor. I see it like blocking an ambulance with lights and siren on. It might just be some non-emergency, but there's an expectation that the action will probably cause some degree of harm.
Why can I not use my own equipment to copy data that exists on said equipment and give it out to others?
What happens when you get caught doing so? If there are no consequences, then you're fine and the good in question is not "real property". If there are painful negative consequences, then you have a degree of excludability, a necessary condition of property.
(Score: 2) by monster on Friday April 10 2015, @09:41AM
Under the current legal regime of the day, slavery was fine, you could sell your own kids or you could be taken against your will to do forced duty on the navy. There's a difference between something being legal an being right.
By that line of reasoning, that Brian Green married Megan Fox harmed my opportunities to do the same and reach fames, riches and a great wife. Same when Apple released the Iphone and harmed all the other mobile makers. Do you see what I try to show you?
No, it just means that there's a law that punish it. Take an extreme, fictional example: Your own CP collection, recorded by yourself (so your IP). If you are caught with it there are serious consequences but that doesn't mean anything about excludability.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday April 11 2015, @01:07AM
Under the current legal regime of the day, slavery was fine, you could sell your own kids or you could be taken against your will to do forced duty on the navy. There's a difference between something being legal an being right.
I imagine there were very few people of those times who claimed that slavery didn't exist merely because it was immoral and wouldn't be enforceable in a fair world. That seems the analogous position.
No, it just means that there's a law that punish it. Take an extreme, fictional example: Your own CP collection, recorded by yourself (so your IP). If you are caught with it there are serious consequences but that doesn't mean anything about excludability.
That's because the example of child porn is fundamentally different. One can't go protest to the police that a hacker came in, copied all the porn, and then started selling it on a web site. Those laws just don't exist for illegal activities and goods. But one can do that for legal photography, assuming you can prove you created the material in the first place and the current seller didn't acquire the rights/permission to use the material from you.
(Score: 3, Touché) by CirclesInSand on Wednesday April 08 2015, @12:33PM
Campaign for Liberty is Dr. Ron Paul's web presence. Ron Paul is not Rand Paul, so don't count on Dr. Rand Paul agreeing with everything on that web site. They differ on many things, like foreign involvement and political expediency.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @12:51PM
That is some weak tea, head in the sand denialism right there.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Wednesday April 08 2015, @02:32PM
I think we all understand that there are some points of difference between Rand Paul and his dad, just like there are differences between Jeb Bush and his brother, and differences between Hillary Clinton and her husband. But there's also a lot of continuity in all of those cases: Not just that the candidates are most definitely talking to the person that's close to them, but also that they're using basically the same inner circle of advisers and the same organizational apparatus and appealing to the same kinds of voters.
And it's not like Rand Paul has ever said something along the lines of: "I'm nothing like my old man, he's a sad case that I tolerate because I'm a loyal son." Instead he's generally taken the position that he's a lot like his dad, but more practical and less ideological.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by CirclesInSand on Wednesday April 08 2015, @06:35PM
No, the difference is much greater than the examples you suggested.
Dr. Ron Paul campaigned on shutting down several cabinets under the president, like energy, education, EPA, etc. As in, ignore congress and just fire them because they don't have constitutional authority for their positions. He also campaigned on "bring the troops home on day 1". Those are some pretty extreme non-status-quo positions (that I agree with for the most part).
Dr. Rand Paul endorsed Mitt Romney 4 years ago. He has said nothing about ending foreign wars that I'm aware of, although he has talked about not starting any more. He doesn't take a hard line on shutting down federal government offices and leaving their operation to state governments. Rand Paul isn't going to immediately tie a noose around the necks of the Board of the Federal Reserve like his father would.
They are quite different people. This isn't some Hillary vs. Bill hair splitting. I think Dr. Rand is an excellent representative, and far more qualified for the office of president than any of the zero experience state governors who will almost inevitably be on the ticket. I wish that an article from Campaign for Liberty would be suggestive Rand Paul's polices, but regardless of how the mass consumption media is going to portray him, he is not Ron Paul, for better or worse.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 08 2015, @09:47PM
Considering the Pauls were both instrumental in the fight against SOPA and PIPA
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @11:25PM
Understand the start of sentence two.
Their objections to those bills had nothing to do with limiting copyright and everything to do with limiting government control of the internet.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday April 09 2015, @02:44AM
And I'll point out here that the Obama administration is more aggressive in creating and enforcing intellectual property rights (since they aren't shy about backing their schemes with government power) and recently they backed off (at least temporarily) on blocking net neutrality. They don't get labeled with these silly names. No one, aside from the *IAA players, are solely focused on creating more powerful copyrights and other intellectual property (which is what "copyright maximalist" implies). Everyone else has other priorities and can be influenced by engaging them in these other priorities.
Moving on, there is a profound malicious ignorance displayed by the submitter of the article which is far too common. Libertarianism is an inherently unpopular belief system. The rationalizations for pension funds, health care, and most government activity is many decades old and has been rather effective for most of that time. People would rather just have their stuff.
Libertarianism has grown popular in the US because of the state of the US, particularly, its government. Libertarianism and the Rands have consistently been against the worst abuses of the US government of the past two or three decades. They've been against institutionalized torture; the Wars on Drugs, Terrorism, and Evil; bailouts of businesses which heavily favor the wealthy; open-ended and rather sloppy spying on everyone; and the various legislative attempts to create strangleholds on intellectual property. The bizarre thing here is that there should be plenty of natural though very temporary allies for libertarianism, namely, everyone who is concerned that the dilution of US spending on stuff that is an actual purpose of government combined with government overreach is going to harm all the stuff that they want the US government to be doing. Instead, we get this incredibly childish assaults on libertarians while ignoring the primary reason that libertarians are libertarians, namely, that the US government is way out of control and getting worse.
Drain this swamp and the libertarians would be vastly diminished. But so many people are completely against this obvious remedy. What's going to happen in a few decades to a society which has a government that places a higher priority on spying on the entire planet than having a viable future? I think it'll just be a looted police state shell by then, unless we do something about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2015, @02:15AM
> I don't care what the motives were.
If you don't care about the motives of politicians then you have no clue how they will govern.
> I merely pointed out that the assertion that the Rands were "copyright maximalists" was false just from a cursory and false reading of the article.
FTFY.
> And I'll point out here that the Obama administration is more aggressive in creating and enforcing intellectual property rights
Utterly fucking irrelevant to the issue that the Pauls are copyright maximalists.
The rest of your post seems to be irrelevant sophistry in the service of protecting your ego for having made a 180-degree error in characterizing Rand Paul's attitude towards copyright.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 10 2015, @04:40AM
If you don't care about the motives of politicians then you have no clue how they will govern.
That's irrelevant to the discussion and not something that I see practiced seriously or consistently in real life. Where's the similar concern for current and past presidents' motives or the current crop of likely candidates on the Democrat or Republican sides? This is a game that's been played before. Someone like Obama, a Clinton, or a Bush gets a free pass from a large portion of US voters while the Rands get put under a microscope. If the politicians who were actually likely to get elected were subject to the same analysis by their supporters, then I think the US would have a very solid democracy. But that doesn't happen.
Utterly fucking irrelevant to the issue that the Pauls are copyright maximalists.
Except to note the on-topic obvious, someone is concern-trolling about the Pauls' supposed copyright maximalist tendencies, but not an actual government's even stronger, copyright maximalist tendencies.
The rest of your post seems to be irrelevant sophistry in the service of protecting your ego for having made a 180-degree error in characterizing Rand Paul's attitude towards copyright.
Not to me. Nor did I make the error you accuse me of.