Patterico's Pontifications

9/14/2006

The Illegal Link Revisted

Filed under: Civil Liberties,General,International,Law,Public Policy — Justin Levine @ 12:50 am



[posted by Justin Levine] 

In the global age of the Internet, I find it simply bizarre to think that there are actually websites out there that are illegal to read in the U.S., but perfectly legal in other countries such as Australia. (I’m not talking about any type of sex site, but websites that simply contain text and literature.)

Here is an example if you wish to engage in “civil disobedience” in the U.S. (or is it “fair use”?).

[posted by Justin Levine]

46 Responses to “The Illegal Link Revisted”

  1. Why is it that so many bloggers, and only bloggers, think copyright means steal it because you can get away with it? Yeah, it’s as illegal to steal intellectual property as it is illegal to steal actual property. Copyright has been protecting American literary output for a long time now and only bloggers, who write for free and think everyone else should too, seem to think it’s a joke.

    Howard Veit (28df94)

  2. I think that we as a society do have a vested interest in not permitting Andrew Sullivan to get his hands on the full, unexpurgated text of Peter Pan.

    Dan Collins (208fbe)

  3. Fair use?

    Either you don’t know what you’re talking about or you’re kidding.

    Which is it?

    Neil Lehto (702265)

  4. Copyright has been protecting American literary output for a long time now and only bloggers, who write for free and think everyone else should too, seem to think it’s a joke.

    For a while, america was quite enriched by NOT respecting the copyright of other countries. Now we seek to pull the ladder up behind us, and require that other countries move to using our IP law.

    actus (10527e)

  5. I think it’s a bit misleading to say that it is “illegal to read” those books or click those links in the US. It may be actionable, but is it a crime? If you were to copy and distribute, I can see that running afoul of bootlegging legislation, but simply reading them online would seem to be perfectly legal.

    Pablo (efa871)

  6. Copyright law is seen as a joke due to the length of time copyright lasts- it used to be 23 years, now it’s essentially indefinate. In the event something is due for expiration, if the company is powerful enough (ie what disney did a few years back) they’ll get Congress to extend the copyrights pretty much at will.

    h0mi (cbedfa)

  7. The expiration of a copyright should coincide with the time when the author can fairly be said to have had an opportunity to receive the full value of his work in the marketplace; copyright expiration should not artificially truncate the period in which an intellectual product has market value. Who better than the author (or the person who has purchased the copyright from the author) to decide the length of this period? If Disney produces copyrightable work that continues to have marketability for a century or more beyond its creation, why should it not be permitted to control the distribution of that work during that period, subject to legitimate fair use (not just the “I want it, so it’s fair for me to take it without paying” fair use)?

    TNugent (6128b4)

  8. Pablo, why is reading copyrighted material in violation of the copyright any less actionable than downloading copyrighted music and merely listening to it in violation of the copyright, as opposed to distributing it?

    TNugent (6128b4)

  9. People who think ideas and thoughts (non-material things) are equivalent to physical property, are committing a category error. And that category error has led us to silly intellectual property “rights”.

    A consequentialist argument that having such fake rights has led to economic growth, is as faulty as using a consqeuentialist argument that free slave labor is good for the plantation owner.

    Austrian (38ff57)

  10. It isn’t usually the original work that’s irritating. It is the way ‘derivative work’ is classified.

    I personally don’t have a problem with permanent protection for the original work. It is the swath of derivative works, and the creativity blocked there that’s an issue.

    Half of the Disney hits are _derivative_ from folk tales. Commonly compiled as the ‘Grimm Fairy Tails’.

    There’s no enforcement of copyright on ‘Rose Red, Snow White’. But write something similar to it, and you’ll be exposed to _Disney’s_ lawsuit for infringing Snow White.

    Al (2e2489)

  11. Fortunately, there are few people dull and backward enough to think that just because something of value isn’t tangible and physical its creator cannot be considered to own some rights in it — whether or not called “property” — that permit the creator some control over use of the thing and the recovery of its market value. These are the people who fail to understand that the most fundamental feature that developed societies have in common is laws that protect a broad range of rights commonly referred to as “property”. The same people are the ones who tend to use silly “it’s like slavery” arguments when faced with an argument that is beyond their ability to rebut or, often, even comprehend. The rest of us understand that some creators of intellectual product could probably do just fine without copyright laws. The reason we have copyright laws is so that all creators of intellectual products will receive at least the protection that the law establishes as the minimum — and those protected include creators who don’t already have the means to provide for their own protection through private licensing agreements and the like. Copyright laws have a decentralizing effect on the production of intellectual products, which stimulates economic growth while also resulting in the production of a greater diversity of intellectual products.

    TNugent (6128b4)

  12. Tnugent,

    From your enlightened deer stand above the dull and backward people below you, could you ponder this one:

    1) Bill has an axe. Chad wants the axe and takes it from Bill. Bill no longer has use of the axe.

    2) Bill has an axe. From viewing Bill, Chad comprehends the basic idea of axe-building, and makes his own axe. Bill still has the use of his axe.

    Explain how case #2 is just like case #1 in terms of property rights violation.

    See if you can do this without using irrelevant claims like “Bill no longer has monopoly selling rights to the idea of an axe”, since that has nothing to do with the actual property no longer being under his control.

    Austrian (38ff57)

  13. Austrian,

    I’ll just fifty or so homeless people to sleep at your house, OK? They promise not to sleep on any spot you want to sleep on.

    nk (77d95e)

  14. nk,

    I have rarely seen such a pithy non-sequitur, congrats. Did you read what I wrote, and do you understand the difference between someone occupying your house, and someone building their own house based on the idea of your house? In one case, you have lost the use of your house – your property rights have been violated. I believe in you, that after you think about it for a couple hours, you can figure out which case that is.

    Austrian (38ff57)

  15. Austrian,

    Talent, education, hard work and investment of capital, which are necessary to obtain a patent or copyright, are not communal property any more than your house is. Do you get my point? No, I don’t think so and why should you? The talentless, the uneducated, the lazy and the losers want to believe that the whole world is their mommy and daddy and all the good things just appear magically without any more cost to anyone else than what it costs them when they steal them.

    nk (77d95e)

  16. nk,

    Those who invent something will be first on the market and so have a natural advantage. That you can now spend money to obtain a government-enforced monopoly claim on that idea, is not a justification that doing so follows properly as an extension of property rights.
    Are there those who invest more heavily than they would otherwise, because they know they will obtain an unnatural monopoly on the ideas they invest in? Of course. But that’s like saying those who invested time and money in bringing slaves over to America deserved to use that labor. In both cases you have other people’s right to use their labor and property as they see fit violated.

    Property rights exist because in order to live as free beings we need to be able to use our bodies/labor/property as we see fit, and taking that property against your will prevents you from doing that. Someone using their property in realizing someone else’s idea does not prevent that first person from continuing to use their idea. It may prevent them from making as much money on it, since they don’t have an unnatural monopoly on its realization. But profit motive is not a justification of property rights.

    Austrian (38ff57)

  17. Profit motive is not a justification for property rights? Austrian, I give up.

    nk (54c569)

  18. Pablo, why is reading copyrighted material in violation of the copyright any less actionable than downloading copyrighted music and merely listening to it in violation of the copyright, as opposed to distributing it?

    Because reading is not reproducing. Downloading is. You don’t need a license to listen to copyrighted music nor to read copyrighted text. If so, you’d have to pay to turn the radio on or browse at a bookstore. But when you download something, you’re making an illegal copy of it.

    The next question would be whether you can make an illegal copy of a legal copy that exists in the public domain. Thank God no one is likely to ever sue over this. I could become quite the legal brain teaser.

    Pablo (efa871)

  19. Austrian, no one is suggesting that #2 is like #1. Perhaps in Austria one can obtain a patent on a simple machine such as an axe, but I doubt it — such a thing appears to be a legitimate grievance only in the imaginary world you seem to inhabit.

    It’s telling that you would use such a lame patent example to make a point on a thread that is about copyrights in particular. Yes, patents are another subset of the set of intellectual property, but most people understand that there are differences between the two. Perhaps you’re using “committing a category error” to mean “avoiding an inductive fallacy.”

    TNugent (6128b4)

  20. Pablo, I see your point, but if reading (as distinguished from copying for subsequent reading — let’s leave alone subsequent distribution or even recopying) is ok, then is listening to an unlicensed webcast of copyrighted music ok also? I suppose to make the analogy a good one, we would have to assume that the webcaster is acting legally where he is located. And to apply it, we would also have to discount the likelihood that enforcing copyrights by prosecuting readers/listeners, as opposed to those who obtain reproducible files, is extraordinarily difficult and likely ineffective.

    TNugent (6128b4)

  21. TNugent,

    Then you can replace “axe” with “one-click shopping”. It’s still a simple ‘device’, yet the latter does fall under a patent. And yes, my complaint is against ‘intellectual property’ in general – an oxymoron – not with patents or copyright specifically.

    Austrian (38ff57)

  22. “And yes, my complaint is against ‘intellectual property’ in general – an oxymoron – not with patents or copyright specifically”

    Yup. Your equating the writing of Moby Dick or the invention of the incandescent light bulb (Comment #16) with transporting slaves from Africa kind of gave that hint, Austrian.

    nk (4d4a9d)

  23. You don’t need a license to listen to copyrighted music nor to read copyrighted text. If so, you’d have to pay to turn the radio on or browse at a bookstore.

    You do need a license to listen to copyrighted music. Among the rights of a copyright holder is a performance right. Listening is a performance. As an owner of a copyrighted song you have a license to listen to it. In the olden days, the copyright royalty peope used to go around to barber shops suing them for playing the radio.

    As for reading, you don’t need a license. But you do need a license to make a copy. On the web, when you go to a website, you’re making a copy.

    actus (10527e)

  24. Talent, education, hard work and investment of capital, which are necessary to obtain a patent or copyright, are not communal property any more than your house is

    Those aren’t necessary to protect a copyright. Any original work of authorship is protected by copyright. You ever take a picture? that’s protected by copyright.

    actus (10527e)

  25. Pablo, I see your point, but if reading (as distinguished from copying for subsequent reading — let’s leave alone subsequent distribution or even recopying) is ok, then is listening to an unlicensed webcast of copyrighted music ok also?

    I believe it is, though the web/broadcast itself is not. Copyright protects the holder from unauthorized distribution, not consumption.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  26. Listening is a performance.

    Good morning, actus. I see you’re in fine form.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  27. BTW, do you own a radio? Ever been in a place with a jukebox? Did you get a license for either of those?

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  28. In the olden days, the copyright royalty peope used to go around to barber shops suing them for playing the radio.

    And restaurants. Especially restaurants.

    Listening is a performance.

    Not the listening but the playing of the material. Like playing a CD in your shop, restaurant, etc. The jukebox owner has (to have) a license for the music.

    h0mi (cbedfa)

  29. Like playing a CD in your shop, restaurant, etc. The jukebox owner has (to have) a license for the music.

    Right, because you’re distributing it in your place of business for a profit motive. This is different from what the listener is doing.

    This is the wrinkle that has made Muzak so successful.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  30. Good morning, actus. I see you’re in fine form.

    You could just read the copyright law:

    “To “perform” a work means to recite, render, play, dance, or act it, either directly or by means of any device or process or, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to show its images in any sequence or to make the sounds accompanying it audible.”

    Right, because you’re distributing it in your place of business for a profit motive

    They’re both performances. When you buy a cd, you have a license to perform it for yourself. But not for a public performance.

    actus (10527e)

  31. Do you have a license to listen to the radio? Do you perform while you’re driving?

    Listening is not performance. Peformance is active, listening is passive. You’ll notice that the definition you posted does not include it.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  32. Do you have a license to listen to the radio?

    Does the radio station have a license to broadcast?

    You’ll notice that the definition you posted does not include it.

    It does. It includes rendering or playing a work.

    actus (10527e)

  33. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications/ASCAP.html

    Starting this summer, the American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers (ASCAP) has informed camps nationwide that they must pay license fees to use any of the 4 million copyrighted songs written or published by ASCAP’s 68,000 members. Those who sing or play but don’t pay, ASCAP warns, might be violating the law. Like restaurants, hotels, bars, stores and clubs – which already pay fees to use copyrighted music – camps, including nonprofit ones such as those run by the Girl Scouts, are being told to ante up. The demand covers not only recorded music but also songs around the campfire.
    “They buy paper, twine and glue for their crafts – they can pay for the music, too,” says John Lo Frumento, ASCAP’s chief operating officer. If offenders keep singing without paying, he says, we will sue them if necessary.”

    No more “Edelweiss” free of charge. No more “This Land Is Your Land.” An ASCAP spokesman says “Kumbaya” isn’t on its list, but “God Bless America” is. Diablo, an all-volunteer day camp that charges girls $44 a week to cover expenses, would owe ASCAP $591 this year, based on the camp’s size and how long it runs. Another composer group, Sesac, Inc., which owns copyrights to such tunes as Bob Dylan’s “Blowin’ in the Wind,” says it plans to ask camps for another set of royalties in the fall.

    rest can be found at the link.

    h0mi (cbedfa)

  34. I probably should’ve read the rest of the post… I hadn’t heard that the ASCAP retreated from their original position after public attention…

    h0mi (cbedfa)

  35. Does the radio station have a license to broadcast?

    Of course it does, and it pays royalites. But you are not the radio station. You’re listening to the radio station.

    It does.

    No it doesn’t. If it did, this sequence of letters would appear with in it: l-i-s-t-e-n-i-n-g. It does not.

    It includes rendering or playing a work.

    Which is still not listening. You can listen without rendering or playing. For instance, if you’re in my car and you are listening to the CD I put on, you are merely listening. If you walk into a restaurant and listen to whatever music they’re playing, you are not performing.

    Listening is not performance, despite your insistence.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  36. You’re listening to the radio station.

    I know. So someone has the license to play that. And that license can’t be exceeded. You would need a license if you were to play the radio in your restaurant, for example. Whether you were for profit or non-profit.

    Listening is not performance, despite your insistence.

    I see how we’re misunderstanding each other: In order for there to be listening, there has to be a performance — and thus a license, whether by the listener or someone else. On the web, there might even be copying once there is listening.

    actus (10527e)

  37. I know. So someone has the license to play that.

    And it’s not you because you don’t need a license to listen, nor can you violate a copyright by listening.

    I see how we’re misunderstanding each other: In order for there to be listening, there has to be a performance — and thus a license, whether by the listener or someone else.

    Now we do undersdtand each other. Listening is not performing, and no license is necessary to do it.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  38. Listening is not performing, and no license is necessary to do it.

    Not quite. A license is necessary. Its just not necessary that the listener own it.

    actus (10527e)

  39. Actus, you are a goon. No license is necessary to listen. It is needed to perform. Anyone can listen with no license at all.

    The performer needs a license, the listener does not.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  40. No license is necessary to listen. It is needed to perform. Anyone can listen with no license at all.

    I’m just clarifying. Listening requires a performance, and performance requires a license. But its not necessary that the same person do all three or own the license.

    actus (10527e)

  41. In order for there to be listening, there has to be a performance — and thus a license, whether by the listener or someone else.

    Comment by actus — 9/17/2006 @ 7:57 am

    —————————————-
    Not quite. A license is necessary. Its just not necessary that the listener own it.

    Comment by actus — 9/17/2006 @ 10:05 am
    ******************************

    actus, at 8am you claim there has to be a license by THE LISTENER or someone else.
    Two hours later, you say it’s ‘not necessary’ that the listener have a license.

    actus, it does appear that even you’re confused by your own sophistry.

    Desert Rat (d8da01)

  42. actus, it does appear that even you’re confused by your own sophistry.

    Do you understand the word “or”? As in its required that the listener OR someone else have the license? do you understand how this is consistent with the idea that it is not necessary that the listener have a license (hint, this is when someone else has it)

    actus (10527e)

  43. As in its required that the listener OR someone else have the license?

    Which means that the listener is not required to have a license. The “or someone else” is the performer, right?

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  44. You do need a license to listen to copyrighted music.

    Comment by actus — 9/16/2006 @ 6:51 am

    do you understand how this is consistent with the idea that it is not necessary that the listener have a license

    Comment by actus — 9/17/2006 @ 12:16 pm

    What a difference a day makes.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  45. Which means that the listener is not required to have a license. The “or someone else” is the performer, right?

    Right. Someone could both perform and listen. Like when I play a record. I’m performing the work — at least as far as copyright law and the right to performance is concerned.

    What a difference a day makes.

    Yes. I’m sorry I misspoke. Listening requires a licence, but not by you the listener.

    actus (10527e)

  46. Yes. I’m sorry I misspoke.

    All day, even… Is misargued a word? If it isn’t, it should be.

    Pablo (08e1e8)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0955 secs.