Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Wednesday April 08 2015, @10:30AM   Printer-friendly
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This discussion has been archived.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.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @02:35AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @02:35AM (#168118)

    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

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 09 2015, @01:12PM (#168303) Journal

    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

      by monster (1260) on Friday April 10 2015, @09:41AM (#168681) Journal

      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.

      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.

      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.

      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?

      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.

      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

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday April 11 2015, @01:07AM (#168876) Journal

        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.