Walpurgis
Initiate
Posts: 67
Reputation: 5.73
Rate Walpurgis
|
 |
A Summary of Common Fallacies of the Media Cartels
« on: 2003-05-05 06:38:11 » |
 |
A Summary of Common Fallacies of the Media Cartels
Debating tools, in three parts.
Part I: The Use of Language
Copying is not stealing
Cartel notables often attempt to couch their arguments in appeals to
morality in order to endear them to the public. A common term used to
accomplish this is to equate the sharing of files with others as "stealing"
from the artist, who deserves compensation for the copy made.
This is flatly and clearly false. The definition of stealing has two
distinct aspects: one is to deprive the rightful owner of the use of an item
in favor of oneself, and the second is to do so without the owner's
permission. Regardless of who is deemed the owner of a copyrighted work (see
"Content Owners", below), making a copy of a work in another's possession
does nothing to deprive the original owner of it's possession or use. It is
therefore not stealing, as it does not meet the criteria set forth in the
very definition of "stealing".
Theft is a criminal offense in most courts that can be prosecuted by the
government on it's own; the crime of copyright infringement is what is being
committed when works are copied without authorization. This is a civil
offense, requiring that the copyright holder file suit in a civil court.
Do not let appeals to your "moral compass" force you into a denial of the
facts. American laws are made, in principle, by the people themselves, and
it is their right to decide what is both lawful and moral.
There is no such thing as a "Content Owner"
Especially in discussion of DRM technologies (see DRM, below), it is
becoming more common to refer to copyright holders as "content owners". This
is dishonest, as it asserts that a work of information can be owned like a
piece of physical property. It is not the works themselves, but, literally,
the "copy right" that is held by the creator of the work.
In addition, these copyrights are temporary. Every copyright is scheduled to
expire 70 years after the death of a work's author.
At that point, the work falls into what is known as the public domain,
requiring neither attribution nor payment to utilize in any fashion by any
person.
The Constitutional Basis of Copyright, and it's abuses
The convention of copyright was established in the US Constitution which
grants Congress the ability:
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited
times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective
writings and discoveries;"
Note that the purpose of copyright is clear - "To promote the progress of
science and useful arts". This was intended to allow authors of works
exclusive control over how their ideas were distributed and utilized so that
the profit motive would encourage them to innovate. Today, overbroad patents,
copyright infringement suits actually stifle and chill innovation, as people
refrain from discussing and building on the works of others for fear of
infringements of the "intellectual property" of others.
Originally, copyrights were limited to a period of 14 years, with the option
of a single 14 year extension. Since 1960, copyrights have been extended
eleven times. More recently, copyright terms have been being extended
regularly by Congress such that effective copyright expiration dates have
been extended at the same rate that time actually passes. If this trend
continues, no works more recent than the 1920s will EVER pass into the
public domain. This is an effective way to skirt the "for limited times"
clause of the Constitution and create perpetual copyrights.
|
Author
Logged
