• Flattr FoI: 
Falkvinge &Co. on Infopolicy
BEFORE-FALKVINGE-IF-ANY FALKVINGE &CO. ON
INFOPOLICY
Falkvinge on Infopolicy - Home
»
chairs

Copyright is a Limitation of Property Rights

72

Copyright Monopoly

Copyright Monopoly

Copyright is not a property right. It is a limitation of property rights. Copyright is a government-sanctioned private monopoly that limits what people may do with things they have legitimately bought.

When I buy a chair, I hand over money and I get the chair and a receipt. This chair has been mass-produced from master data at some sort of plant. After money has changed hands, this particular chair is mine. There are many others like it, but this one is mine. I have bought one of many identical copies. The receipt proves it.

As this copy of the chair is mine, exclusively mine, there are a number of things I can do with it. I can take it apart and use the pieces for new hobby projects, which I may choose to sell, give away, put out as exhibits or throw away. I can put it out on the porch and charge neighbors for using it. I can examine its construction, produce new chars from my deductions, and do whatever I like with them, particularly including selling them.

All of this is normal for property. It is mine; I may do what I like with it.

As a sidetrack, this assumes that there are no patents on the chair. However, assuming that the invention of the chair is older than 20 years, any filed patents on this particular invention have expired. Therefore, patents are not relevant for this discussion.

Now, let’s jump to what happens when I buy a movie.

When I buy a movie, I hand over money and I get the DVD and a receipt. This movie has been mass-produced from master data at some sort of plant. After money has changed hands, this particular movie is mine. There are many others like it, but this one is mine. I have bought one of many identical copies. The receipt proves it.

Despite the fact that this copy of the movie is mine, exclusively mine, there are a number of things that I may not do with it, prohibited from doing so by the copyright monopoly held by somebody else. I may not use pieces of the movie for new hobby projects that I sell, give away, or put out as exhibits. I may not charge the neighbors for using it on the porch. I may not examine its construction and produce new copies. All of these rights would be normal for property, but the copyright monopoly is a severe limitation on my property rights to what I have legitimately bought.

It is not possible to say that I own the the DVD when viewed in one way but not when viewed in another. There is a clear definition of property, and the receipt says I own the DVD in all its interpretations and aspects. Every part of the shape making up the DVD is mine. Copyright, however, limits how I can use my own property.

This doesn’t inherently mean that copyright is bad. It does, however, mean that copyright cannot be defended from the standpoint that property rights are good. If you take your stand from there, you will land in the conclusion that copyright is bad as it is a limitation of property rights.

As Christian Engström writes, defending copyright with the justification that property rights are sacred is quite like defending death penalty for murder with the justification that life is sacred. There may be other, valid, justifications for defending copyright and these limitations of property rights — but that particular chain of logic doesn’t hold.

A quick history lesson here as to why copyright is commonly (and deliberately!) confused with property rights:

When the copyright monopoly of the Stationers’ Company had been terminated in the United Kingdom in 1695, the publishers lobbied heavily to have their lucrative monopoly reinstated. Parliament, however, were not too keen on that idea. The monopoly had been  a central point of control used for censorship for 148 years, and the British Parliament attached great importance to not creating any mechanism that could be used to suppress free speech, at least not using that particular method.

The publishing lobby responded by suggesting that writers should “own” their works. In doing so, they killed three birds with one stone. One, Parliament would be assured that there was no central point of control which could be used to censor. Two, the publishers would retain a monopoly for all intents and purposes, as the writers would have nobody to sell their works to but the publishing industry. Three, and perhaps most importantly, the monopoly would be legally classified as Anglo-Saxon Common Law rather than the weaker Case Law, and therefore given much stronger legal protection.

They publishing lobby got as they wanted, and the new copyright was re-enacted in 1709, taking effect on April 10, 1710.

I sometimes refer to this as the copyright lobby’s first major legal victory, when the monopoly was reclassified into Anglo-Saxon Common Law due to that particular piece of footwork and deliberate misrepresentation as property.

You've read the whole article. Why not subscribe to the RSS flow using your favorite reader, or even have articles delivered by mail?

About The Author: Rick Falkvinge

Rick is the founder of the first Pirate Party and is a political evangelist, traveling around Europe and the world to talk and write about ideas of a sensible information policy. He has a tech entrepreneur background and loves whisky.

Liked This?

By participating in the discussion and posting here, you are placing your contribution in the public domain (CC0). If you are quoting somebody else, credit them.

Contributors take own responsibility for their comments.

72

  1. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Falkvinge, Falkvinge, planetinspace, lillebrorsan, Parti Pirate Maroc and others. Parti Pirate Maroc said: RT @Falkvinge: on #infopolicy: Copyright is a Limitation of Property Rights http://goo.gl/fb/yK1m9 [...]

  2. 2
    Mumfi.

    Some nitpicking here. As it seems you have lost all your resident trolls, I might as well troll some myself. Were are they by the way? If they follow the pp leadership I will consider that prof of my suspicions that they were paid by someone. No one could really be that stupid and persistent for free.

    Anyway…
    You do know you can’t really do what you want with your chair? There is such a thing as “mönstersskydd” for the design, so you can’t actually copy it and sell the copies. Now, that’s not rely a restriction on your use of that char as such, rather a restriction on your freedom to build chairs with your own time and materials. So would a patent be. ie not a restriction on your chair, rather on other properties of yours. Your point is still absolutely valid tough.

    • 2.1
      Rick Falkvinge

      A mönsterskydd (design patent) is only awarded in very specific circumstances, which won’t apply to any chair made today. The design needs to enhance the functionality of the chair (and not merely look slightly different).

      • 2.1.1
        Mumfi.

        Not for a generic char no, but if it were a generic chair you would not really be copying it as much as simply making another char. But if the chair is distinctive and innovative, which I believe are the actual criteria, you would get mönsterskydd. It would not be all that restrictive, as it is easily avoided by making small changes that would alter the character of the chair. In fact, this could be a good thing as there would now be two different set of chairs instead of one and any consumer would be made aware he is not buying the original. In any event I believe there is an entirely reasonable time limit of tree years for unregistered designs. For registered designs there is the totally unreasonable 25 years; an additional tree years for an absurdly high registration fee would be more to my liking…

        What was my point anyway?
        Oh, yes it not really a restriction on your chair but on your right to build other chairs. In the DVD case it really is a restriction on the use of your DVD: So your point holds. Just pointing out that there is an increasing difficulty to find examples were you feely can use your property…

  3. 3
    Carl

    I have a hard drive. I have bought it with my money, and I own it. But copyright laws actually restrict what information that hard drive may contain. It may be illegal for me to set the 0s and 1s in that hard drive to a certain combination, while another combination is just fine. The electronic state in which that hard drive is might cause me to get punished. Many people see it as their business what magnetic configuration my hard drive is in.

    That’s the example I like to use when pointing out how extremely absurd the infringement of ownership due to copyright laws can be when you think of it.

  4. 4

    While I agree with your general conclusions, I find this particular illustration of yours (what you can do with a chair) quite flawed, in that it confuses ownership with access. Leaving aside the issue of whether someone may have a legal monopoly on making copies or images of a particular chair, I maintain that your ability to make such copies is independent of your right of ownership. Or would you claim you can’t legally take a photo of a building until you have bought the building itself?

    True, copyright is a restriction of your freedom to reproduce or display an item, but in order to do either of those things, you don’t actually have to own the item, you just need access to it. While ownership may be one way of obtaining that access, there are other ways too, such as studying the item in a private or a public place, borrowing it, or even stealing it. And conversely, if you were to inherit some landed property you had never seen from an aunt of yours, you wouldn’t immediately be able to make copies to scale of said property just because you had become its owner.

    As the owner of an item, you are allowed to use, lend, sell, give away, modify or destroy that item (maybe a few more things, but they could be perceived as variations of these). Note that nobody else can legally do those things without your (the owner’s) permission; that’s what makes them subject to ownership. But taking a photo of the item, or copying it? If I can physically do it, my freedom to do so does not depend on your permission, even as it would be common courtesy to ask. Therefore, copyright law is a restriction of my freedom, but not of your ownership in general, except for your lending rights.

    Therefore, while copyright does limit your property rights in terms of your right to lend that property, your property rights are not limited with respect of your right to copy the same property, because copying is not even a part of your initial property rights at all. There are laws limiting your freedom to act in other ways, such as speed limits on the road – they apply the same whether the motorbike you ride belongs to you or to somebody else. Therefore the law against speeding is not a restriction of your property rights, but of your freedom.

    It’s clear that “intellectual property” and “physical property” are two very different concepts, albeit with certain similarities allowing them to be traded for each other. But explaining that difference by claiming they contradict each other (and exaggerating the contradiction in the process) is about as useful as trying to explain how the law against trespassing limits your right of ownership to your shoes.

    • 4.1
      Rick Falkvinge

      You have an interesting point, but I see it as an addition to mine, rather than a contradiction.

      It is true that access is a prerequisite for copying, and that ownership is but one way to get such access. However, and this is important, it is a sufficient way to get such access. It is not necessary, but it is sufficient.

      It follows, then, that if one has all sufficient requirements for access, and still is not legally allowed to make a copy, some of the fulfilled requirements must be legally limited by other mechanisms.

      In this case, ownership is limited by the copyright monopoly.

      My point is to juxtapose two purchases, both leading to ownership, where one is limited by the copyright monopoly and the other is not. As you point out, there are several other scenarios that are also limited by the copyright monopoly, and where other paths leads to access, making copying theoretically possible.

      However, as I outlined above: since ownership is a sufficient precondition for access (enabling my making copies and more), and it is yet illegal for me to treat my property as normal property, copyright is a limitation of those property rights.

    • 4.2
      Mumfi.

      Copyright _is_ a limitation on property rights. And of your freedom, of course. Not primarily a limitation on the container you bought. It is a limitation on the container too, of course, as you are not allowed to use it as intended to be used at a party for example, or have a movie night with your hockey club, and so on. But the limitation is primarily what you are allowed to do with _other_ property you own. You may not build and sell a copy of the chair, even if you own the materials. You are not allowed to make a copy of the music even if you on the materials. The limitation is in that you are not allowed to use your owned materials as you see fit. This is unrelated to your ownership of the original. The difference in the dvd and chair examples are in level and not in principle. In the dvd case thought there are additional limitations that actually limit your use of the original. The main limitation of property rights is not on the containers of copyrighted materials, be it chairs or dvds, but rather on your freedom to do whatever you like with your owned materials.

  5. 5
    Gnejs

    Sounds like Falkvinge is still caught up in his dirty rethorics a chair is definitively much easier and cheaper to produce than a movie, yet the chair often costs much more to buy than a movie.
    Some of the things he says one cant do wirh a movie is BS, of course you can do what you want with it as long as you don’t do it for profit.

    • 5.1
      Mumfi.

      You are confusing the development cost with the marginal cost. The development cost of a new movie is possibly higher than that of a new chair. The marginal cost, on the other hand, for a chair is definitely much higher than that for a copy of a movie. It will always be higher, as the marginal cost for the copy of the movie is zero.

  6. 6
    Undrande...

    @Gnejs:

    “Sounds like Falkvinge is still caught up in his dirty rethorics a chair is definitively much easier and cheaper to produce than a movie, yet the chair often costs much more to buy than a movie.”

    The same holds for a necklace, a bicycle, a pair of brand jeans, and on and on. What’s your *point* ?

    “Some of the things he says one cant do wirh a movie is BS, of course you can do what you want with it as long as you don’t do it for profit.”

    Completely false statement on your behalf. It’s now obvious that you have no idea what you’re talking about. Learn more, and try again.

    (When I read tripe like yours, I almost miss nejtillpirater … he (she?) could at least *pretend* to have *some* kind of knowledge upon which to base the trolling.)

    • 6.1
      Gnejs

      Undrande, you obviously is one of Ricks lapdogs who regularly come running to defend his flawed arguments with even more flawed arguments. Massive fail…

      Your comparisions wirh clothes and bicycles misses the point with about a million miles and a couple of million dollars….

  7. 7
    Anaka

    Falkvinge claims that the transaction of purchasing a copy of a movie or a piece of music should give him the same rights as when he purchase a chair.
    What if the purchase is that of a can of Pepsi?
    Does the purchase of a can of Pepsi entitle Falkvinge to copy the Pepsi drink and hand it out for free – to 12 000 000 of his friends – with Falkvinge calling it a perfect copy of Pepsi and this (I guess) as long as he doesn’t charge for the actual drink.
    What if the purchase is that of a night in a hotel room – what will Falkvinge believe he has bought, apart from the right to use the room for that night?

    • 7.1
      Mumfi.

      Funny you mention it. Because you are actually allowed to copy a can of Pepsi, and to sell the copies to. You may even say it is a perfect copy, as long as you don’t claim it to actually be Pepsi. That would be a trademark violation and trademark law is a consumer protection law, contrary to what trademark owners seem to think.

      • 7.1.1
        Anaka

        So. what you are saying is that the bittorrent should be allowed as long as it is not called by the actual name of the film or artist – in the same manner as you are not allowed to claim that it is Pepsi in your home-made can of Pepsi.

      • 7.1.2
        Rick Falkvinge

        @Anaka: You are confusing copyrights with trademarks. I can legally claim anything in my home is anything else, but I may not sell something (the keyword here is sell) and claim it is produced by somebody else.

      • 7.1.3
        Mumfi.

        Anaka, I have commented this double post below.

  8. 8
    Gnejs

    I believe you actually can’t say that it is a perfect copy of Pepsi you are not allowed to use other brandnames in the marketing of your “own” product..

  9. 9
    Anaka

    What you are saying is that the illegal bittorrent copy should be allowed as long as it is not called by the actual name of the film or artist or song – in the same manner as you are not allowed to claim that it is Pepsi in your home-made can of Pepsi.

    • 9.1
      Rick Falkvinge

      You are confusing copyrights with trademarks. I can legally claim anything in my home is anything else — it is not illegal to lie — but I may not sell something (the keyword here is sell) and claim it is produced by somebody else.

      Lying is quite regulated once you go business, in particular when you misrepresent your identity. That’s what trademarks are about. This post is about copyright.

      • 9.1.1
        Anaka

        I thought this was a post regarding limitations of property rights. And I am just pointing out other limitations of property rights.
        You do not have the right to sell or give away for free 12 000 000 Pepsi cans copied in your house, just because you bought one can and that seem to me to be a limitation of property rights very similar to the one that stops you from having the right to share 12 000 000 copies of a movie unless you cme to some agreement with Pepsi and I do find it hard to believe you can strike that deal in 7/11 or ICA.
        And this is all similar to a bunch of other purchases that doesn’t grant the buyer ownership in the same manner as you don’t own a movie due to he fact that you bought a copy.

      • 9.1.2
        Mumfi.

        Again totally different things:
        In the pepsi case, in order to protect the consumers, you are not allowed to lie to them. The contents are not protected at all because it’s food. There is nothing at all stopping you from giving away or selling any amount of copied pepsi as long as you are forward with the fact that it is home made.
        In the dvd case it is the content that is protected in order to create an artificial market for the owners of the right to copy.
        These situations are so radical dissimilar that it is absurd to use them in analogy.

        Oh, and none of this has any relation whatsoever with any ownership of the copied original.

    • 9.2
      Mumfi.

      No, I’m just noting there is no protection at all for food or drink. So really a can of pepsi is a really bad example for you. In fact it is a better example of what Rick is trying to illustrate than the chair, as it has less protection than the chair for the content. The package has about the same protection as a distinctive chair. And then there is the whole trademark issue. That’s another thing entirely.

      And all sort of copyright is unrelated to ownership. It is a protection against making copies. It does not restrict your ownership of the specific copy as much as it restricts how you may employ things you own in general.
      Now certain parts of copyright do restrict your use of the copy. ULA, and shrink wrap agreements, and DRM. Those restrict your use of the copy. The main restriction copyright imposes is in your freedom to make copies with resources that are yours. And this is unrelated to the ownership of the original.

      • 9.2.1
        Anaka

        The Pepsi can and all the printing on it is copyright protected and Trademark protected and I doubt you have the right to flog 12000 000 copies of the can nomatter what the content might be, unless you have deal with Pepsi. And again I doubt that deal will be made in Pressbyrån as you buy your sample.

      • 9.2.2
        Mumfi.

        Different things. Trademarks are for consumer protection. The printing may well be copyright protected, but possibly not as it may possibly be considered to utilitarian. The thing is that pepsi is a really really (really really really) bad analogy as the protection is all in the container and not at all in the contents, whereas it is the other way around with the thing you were trying to illustrate. Further the protection on the pepsi can and on the contents of the dvd are protected by totally different systems. One is a consumer protection law preventing you from lying to customers, the other is a utilitarian construct in order to achieve a highly theoretical market situation. They really are not very comparable. If we were to make a comparison regardless, it would not be to your liking. Because even if we do agree on the container, i.e. the can versus the dvd, as we do: They are covered by copyright and trademark and to coy the container would be wrong, because that would be to lie to the consumer. And that is not ok. No one thinks its ok. Not Rick, not the pirate party, not the libertarians, or the anarchist, no one. Then we would see that were you are allowed to copy pepsi, you are not allowed to copy the music on your DVD. You are further more not allowed to use the DVD as you like, where in the case op pepsi you may well market and sell pepsi enemas if you wish.

        So: in the pepsi case you may not copy the container, but you are allowed to copy the contents. In the DVD case you are not allowed to copy the container, and you are also not allowed to copy the contents. See?

        Regardless, copyright has NOTHING to do with ownership of the copied objects as it limits making NEW copies. It does limit property rights because it prevents you from formatting your property in certain ways. It also limits your property rights because it prevents you from using your property in certain ways.

      • 9.2.3
        Anaka

        No matter how you twist and turn, all comparison between immaterial and material property is always wrong since one is material and the other immaterial.
        I did not start to compare the two – Falkvinge did by comparing immaterial property with that of a chair – and that was wrong to begin with.

        But the purchase of a Pepsi does not entitle the buyer the right to make new cans of Pepsi giving it away as if it was Pepsi.

        Neither does the buying of a DVD movie entitle the buyer to duplicate the movie and give it away as if it was the original. If the example above constitute the action of lying – so would this.

        Neither does the purchase of a night in a hotel entitle the buyer to anything but that one night and most certainly not to the actual property.

        Neither does the rental of an apartment entitle the buyer the ownership of the apartment.

        The rental of a car doe´s not entitle the customer ownership of the car.

        The passenger of a train does not get ownership of the seat… and so on and so forth

        There are in other words endless of situations where a limitation of ownership occurs.

        Copyright laws and regulations are not the only limitation in regards of property rights.

      • 9.2.4
        Mumfi.

        When I make a copy of a movie and give it away for free, I’m not in any way implying to anyone that it is anything other than a copy.

        So. your argument is then that it is ok to do this, in the same way that it is ok to copy pepsi, as long as you abide by the trademark laws? Because in that case we are in agreement.

        And again: Ownership of the original has no bearing on copyright. The majority of your examples do not even concern transfer of property, they are purchases of services. You are using the worst possible analogies to illustrate your point. I cant actually imagine any analogy wore then the ones in your list for making your point. You would fare better with Richs chair.

      • 9.2.5
        Anaka

        What I am saying is that there are many different limitations in regards of property rights within all different areas and the copyright regulation is just one of them.

      • 9.2.6
        Mumfi.

        True. It is. This whole post is making that same point. That copyright is a limitation on property rights. It is.

        Not primarily on the property you all are using as examples. And many of your examples do not even concern property rights, as they are not property transactions.

        Still: Yes copyright is a limitation on property rights. And in my opinion a fair limitation, if it can be balanced to the utilitarian reasoning behind it. Copyright is evil, it just happens it may well be the lesser evil. As an evil it is society’s responsibility to minimize it. A balanced copyright, one that do not unnecessarily interfere with peoples lives would be respected almost without legislation. The legislation would still be needed, to keep corporations in check as these are more prone to act within the law than to act within what is considered morally right, as the majority of the citizenry is. The fact that we have a “piracy” “problem” is indication enough to the fact that the laws are not in sync with morality.

  10. 10
    Anaka

    Well, the copyright property is never sold to the consumer in the first place so in that case you can´t really argue that copyright is a limitation of property rights – since the right wasn´t sold in the first place.

    It seems to me the obvious development will be that the copyright holder seize selling their products to individuals and only sell it to companies that in their turn only will distribute the products over streaming services. Hence the discusion of limitations of property rights disappears since there no longer will be any transfer of any rights at all and abolutley no transfer of property.

    • 10.1
      Mumfi.

      Ok. This is my last try. If you don’t red or don’t understand what I’m saying when I say it for the tenth time there is no point in doing it an eleventh time..

      The selling of goods containing copyrighted music or designs or patents has nothing to do with why copyright limits property rights. It is the fact that you cant sing or paint or build what you want with _other_ stuff that you own that is the limitation on your property rights. This is true regardless of whom owns what. You are not allowed to build chairs too similar to chairs you see in the store. That is not a limitation on your right to a bought chair, because the limitation is not dependent on your buying of the chair. It is always there. It is a limitation on your right to do as your like with your wood and nails.
      And before anyone nitpicks about this, I’m well aware this is not strictly a copyright but a design patent and it is vary specific and cover only certain chairs and so on. The point still stands.

      • 10.1.1
        Anaka

        The swedish term immaterial rights is a better expression than intelectual propert. And you are free to do what you want with a piece of music or film – re-edit re- mix trash it etc and so forth – but you are not allowed to mass distribute it, the same way you are not allowed to mass distribute Pepsi cans after buying one or Levis jeans after buying a pair.
        You have to buy the mass distribution right from the owner and this is not a transaction taking place in a shop.

      • 10.1.2
        Rick Falkvinge

        Mumfi: This is a very astute and precise observation. I’m not sure how to put it into rhetoric, though.

        Also, it only applies to the copying limitation — not to the fact that you can’t, say, show the bought DVD to the neighbors for money.

    • 10.2
      Mumfi.

      Oh, and if if intellectual “property” actually where property, then it would have been sold in the transaction. the fact it is not should give you a clue about the fitness of the practise of calling it property.

  11. 11
    Thomas

    I find it rather amusing, that the Pirates of all parties so clearly shows that you are stuck in the old 19:th Century, so stuck in the mindset of industrialization.
    Its amusing that you pirates don’t understand the fundamental differences between intellectual property and “a chair” :-)

    • 11.1
      Mumfi.

      We do understand the difference. It mainly lays in the fact that intellectual “property” is not property.

      • 11.1.1
        Thomas

        After reading some of the comments, I still claim that you don’t understand the fundamental differences between the two.
        Its easier to understand if you compare intellectual property, IP, to buy services. Going to a concert for example, you don’t own anything after the concert – except your joy and happy memories :-) Same thing when going to the cinema, you buy the joy of watching a good movie.
        And the same goes for buying a DVD – the little silver disc in only the carrier. You buy the joy of watching the movie, just as you did at the cinema or the concert.
        The key difference is that you buy a function, a service and not any physical thing. We could imagine a similar concept with the chair. Instead of buying the chair, you buy the function. The “right to sit” :-)
        Potentially on any chair, anywhere. You buy the service and not the chair itself.

        So its very much a matter of what you really are buying. The actual little silver DVD disc, the compiled 1′s and 0′s that enables you to watch – or the joy of watching a movie?

        • MaxPower

          Why is it called property then? That seems very misleading at the least. Also as stated before digital content, which can be copied for free as far as the original intellectual “property” holder is concerned, emphasizes how ridiculous the notion really is. Books magazines etc.. were tangible items not bits zapped through communication lines so it was not as obviously stupid then as it is now.
          The fact that the music industries lost sales in digital media are now being gained in concert sales shows that this enforced monopoly is really a business model error. If people have the money they will just spend it in another avenue of their preferred entertainment when something else becomes less expensive they do not just suddenly decide to become hoarders. This whole problem stems from misunderstanding and demonizing human nature by those who obviously do not think too highly of themselves or their fellow man.

  12. 12
    anaka

    The swedish term immaterial rights is a better expression than intelectual propert. And you are free to do what you want with a piece of music or film – re-edit re- mix trash it etc and so forth – but you are not allowed to mass distribute it, the same way you are not allowed to mass distribute Pepsi cans after buying one or Levis jeans after buying a pair.
    You have to buy the mass distribution right from the owner and this is not a transaction taking place in a shop.

    • 12.1
      Mumfi.

      No one would stop you from serving pepsi (in the original cans, that is the protected part, as the content does not have any form of protection whatsoever) at you party, or from wearing your jeans in public. In the case of the contents on your dvd you are very much hindered from using it as intended at your party or in public. In the case of the party it is dependent on who is invited and some other factors, nothing is ever straight forward in these matters.

      Copyright is a limitation on property rights. So are other forms of immaterial “property” rights. Generally these are limitations on your property rights for _other_ property than the one you bought that “contains” the protected parts: design, patents, music, trademarks, etc. In the special case of copyright the fact that using the content as intended is considered a duplication it further limits your use of the content you bought. All these restrictions are in place regardless of any buying. You would be just as hindered if you had borrowed, or stolen, or duplicated the product from memory, or, in fact, if you had independently made a similar product without ever having seen the “original”. So, while the limitation on your property right are very real and intrusive, it is not primarily a limitation on the containers of ip sold, nor dependent nor conditioned nor even related to the transactions of property involving the containers.

      To sum it it up: Copyright is a limitation on property rights. Unconditioned by your ownership of anything specific.

  13. 13
    Anaka

    No one will stop you from playing your music from a copy file at your party as the music doesnt have any protection at your party or from listening at the piece of music in public.

    • 13.1
      Mumfi.

      Yes they would. As I said, it depends a bit on the locale of your party, but technically much of the use people make of music is illegal. And public performance of copyrighted music is a big no.

      The problem is one of enforcement, not lack of law.

  14. 14
    Fredrika

    Thomas January 30, 2011 – 15:54

    And the same goes for buying a DVD – the little silver disc in only the carrier. You buy the joy of watching the movie, just as you did at the cinema or the concert.

    No? When you go to a movie or a concert, you pay for access to a specific area, and a reserved seat in it.

    The value of being in that area, that makes people buy tickets for that access, is the promise of a certain performance during their stay in that area.

    When you buy a DVD you buy the physical copy. You don’t have to pay anything to be allowed to watch the actual movie, that appears when you decode the one’s and zero’s on the disc, in an appropriate decoder, since everything in society is allowed for the public, until it is forbidden.

    Your logic dictates that society works the other way around, which it doesn’t. You don’t pay for the right to do things with your own physical property. You have the basic option to do whatever you want with it, until it is specifically forbidden in law.

    That’s what the monopoly within copyright is all about, forbidding people the freedom of doing what they are physically able to do, with their own property, that they own.

    So its very much a matter of what you really are buying. The actual little silver DVD disc, the compiled 1′s and 0′s that enables you to watch – or the joy of watching a movie?

    Yes, and as everyone with any basic understanding for society, logic, physics or law knows, you buy the physical copy.

    Now i’m repeating myself, but you don’t have to buy the physical copy to have, what would be considerd the right, to watch the movie?

    You can obtain the physical copy in any way possible, even illegal ones, and you’re still fully allowed to watch the movie, since it is never forbidden to watch a copy, no matter how you got a hold of it.

    But that’s not what this post is about, and why copyright is a limitation of property rights.

    The monopoly within copyright is a limitation of property rights, since it forbids people to use their psychical property in a manner that they might wish, and that they could, if copyright hadn’t existed, and forbid them to do so.

    With physical property, that people own and have access to, they can create physical copies, that they would own. They can burn or magnetize one’s and zero’s in any pattern they choose, on their harddrive’s or burnable disc’s. All the physical property involved in the physical and technical process of creating a physical copy is owned by them.

    But copyright forbids them to do that with their own physical property.

    If copyright hadn’t existed, and put a limit on possible actions, by cutting in to people’s property rights, they would have been able to manufacture as many physical copies as they would have liked to, and do whatever they liked with them, including selling or giving them away for free, since they own all the physical objects of property that are involved.

    The monopoly within copyright is a limitation of people’s property, and their freedom of speech, since it also forbids people to relay information to other people of what pattern’s of one’s and zero’s their physical copy’s have, so that those people in turn can place the one’s and zero’s in the same pattern, on their physical property that they own.

    That’s the sole function of the monopoly within copyright, taking away people’s ability to do what they want, with their physical property, that they own, and forbidding people to use their freedom of speech, to share information with others.

    That’s it. That’s what this entire post is all about, to point out what copyright actually is, an intrusion into property.

    All pirates understand this perfectly clear.

    All paid anti-pirates also understands this perfectly clear.

    That’s why paid anti-pirates are spending all their time lying to politicians and the public, and feeding them completely false propaganda, that copyrighted works is the same thing as physical property, and should be treated as such out of principle, when in fact they are nothing like physical property, and should in no manner be treated in the same way, and definitely not out of principle.

    When you understand that intellectual property is something completely different from physical property, and that being privileged with a copyright monopoly is something completely different from owning physical property, and that the concept of intellectual property, and it’s regulation in copyright laws only can occur by putting limits on peoples physical property and freedom, and that copyright is one big restriction, and that it is that restriction in law, that should be motivated.

    When you undertand that, then it’s basically impossible to come to the conclusions that anti-pirates and large monopoly holders want you to come to, regarding on which party all burden of proof lies, trying to motivate how copyright should look, if current copyright laws are in any way legitimate, or if we even should have copyright at all.

    Because when you try to motivate the restrictions that current copyright laws are based upon, a legislative fail of unprecedented proportions will occur in seven stages.

    There is very little to none evidence to support the claim that the current format of copyright is needed in this day and age, to protect intellectual works for the current long term in time, and there is absolutely nothing to indicate that copyright needs to interfere with what the public does for non-profit purposes, for the true goal of copyright to occur, to maximise the public’s access to creative works.

    Presented evidence that some business models, among many, might fail, is in no way any sorts of evidence that the true goal of copyright no longer will occur, to maximise the public’s access to creative works, with the help of other currently available, or future, business models.

    The fact that several other business models already exists, works, and function, to give that effect, is already clear and proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

    The purpose of copyright is not, and has never been, to guarantee that some business models, among many, should work forever, when the public no longer demands them.

    The purpose of copyright is not, and has never been, that creators or right holders should be able do dictate which business models the public must use and pay for, to gain access to creative works.

    The purpose of copyright is not, and has never been, that creators and rights holders out of principle should have anything close to complete control over their works, and how the public access these works.

    There simply doesn’t exist any copyright related problem today, at least not in the direction that anti-pirates and rights holders claim, that copyright laws need to address.

    That’s fail #1. A problem that needs to be legislatively addressed does not exist.

    The current and suggested copyright laws, does not work in any way, in the manner that they are intended to. In fact, all evidence points to the opposite, that current copyright laws is an actual obstacle for the true goal of copyright to occur.

    That’s fail #2. Current copyright laws do not work, or create the effect they intend to.

    Instead, current copyright laws is an obstacle for the true goal of copyright to occur, they create the direct opposite of the effect that is desired.

    That’s fail #3. Current copyright laws definitely do not work, or create the effect they intend to.

    The non-profit monopoly in current copyright laws are in no way obeyed by the public, and it does in no manner stop the public from doing what they want do to, in terms of sharing and distributing creative works for non-profit use.

    The public doesn’t see it as anything they need to or should obey, so every time legislators try to strengthen copyright laws in conflict with this public’s opinion, the public will simply use technology to find a new way around copyright laws.

    Technology always beat legislation, if motivation exists to create that technology, and after over 40 years of home copying, and almost 15 years of filesharing, it is abundantly clear that that motivation does indeed exist among the public, and there is absolutely nothing to indicate that it can be stopped legislatively.

    That’s fail #4. Current copyright laws definitely schmefinatly do not work.

    Current copyright laws in no way reflect the public’s opinion on what control creators and rights holders should be privileged, to interfere with physical property. Instead the non-profit parts of current copyright laws is considered a joke, and that decreases the public’s acceptance for the very concept of copyright specifically, and the legislative process and laws in general.

    Current copyright laws hurt the public’s acceptance for the basic concept of copyright.

    That’s fail #5. Current copyright laws still doesn’t work, instead they create a new problem. They hurt copyright.

    As a result of that the current copyright laws are unacceptable among the public, and the legislative process that has taken place around them over the last 10 years, this hurts the public’s acceptance for the legislative process and laws in general.

    That’s fail #6. Current copyright laws still definitely do not work, instead they create a really dangerous problem for society.

    Current copyright laws are because of the six above mentioned fails in no way proportionate, or cost effective for society or the public. They give nothing positive in return that wouldn’t occur anyway, but instead they create a large economical cost for society, on several different levels.

    That’s fail #7. Current copyright laws are disproportionate and in no way cost effective.

    Since legitimate legislation must live up to three rules..

    (the legislation must be needed to solve an actual documented problem, #1 above
    ..the legislative tools in the law must work, #2 through #4 above
    ..and the legislation must be proportionate and cost effective, #5 through #7 above)

    ..which these seven fails point out that copyright laws fails miserably with, this leads to the crystal clear conclusion that current copyright laws has no legitimacy in this day and age. They are a complete legislative failure from beginning to end.

  15. 15
    Thomas

    I appreciate the long reply! And will focus on two key issues, two fundamental misunderstandings.

    #1
    Fredrika wrote:
    ” When you go to a movie or a concert, you pay for access to a specific area, and a reserved seat in it.
    The value of being in that area, that makes people buy tickets for that access, is the promise of a certain performance during their stay in that area.”

    Now – a philosophical discussion about price, value and what we buy.
    The value is the performance, not the access to the arena. We would not pay the same price to get access to the arena if it was empty and quiet. So the value is not the access itself, but the performance. That’s the key.
    And we pay money to get value back – in this case the performance, the fun and joy of good concert.
    The access to the area is just an enabler for me to enjoy the show :-)

    Same thing when I go to a movie. Although I could argue that “I buy a ticket” – the ticket itself is useless. I am paying for the movie, not for the ticket. The ticket is just an enabler.

    #2
    “Yes, and as everyone with any basic understanding for society, logic, physics or law knows, you buy the physical copy.”
    This is not correct, you are making an important mistake. Formally and legally you buy a license to use the content, whether it is a movie, music or software. The DVD, the little silver disc filled with 1′s and 0′s is just a media, a carrier – an enabler. No more than that.
    You pay for the right to use – no more and no less.
    And since you pay for a license to use the content, there is no intrusion to the property rights of the consumer.

    To me, this is important. To pay for the value. And the value is the content, not the hardware. I pay for listening to music, not for the spinning CD, not a piece of black vinyl or downloaded 1′s and 0′s. They are just the enablers. The value is the joy of the music, to laugh or cry at a movie or enjoying playing game.

  16. 16
    Rick Falkvinge

    Thomas: I will focus on your #2.

    I am sorry, but this is simply wrong. As a consumer, you can buy one of two things: goods or services. This is written into the consumer protection laws in most member states of Europe.

    When you are buying the CD, you are buying the physical item, and not a service. Formally and legally.

    (The limitation of goods and services is not limiting a person’s ability to enter into contracts. But you’re not doing that when buying a CD; you’re signing your name nowhere nor agreeing to conditions pre-sale.)

    • 16.1
      Thomas

      Have I made a mistake, my apologies.
      But its not as simple as you claim. When buying software, like a PC-game or “windows” you buy the license, the right to use the software.
      Music and movies?
      Ain’t gonna argue until I know better :-)

  17. 17
    Rick Falkvinge

    Thomas: You’re quite right — software is different, or at least, so the vendors would have us believe. They are trying to make it neither a good or a service but a contract, through various legal means.

    This may or may not hold up in court. Anyway, no contract text is visible on a CD or DVD pre-sale as it is with software.

  18. 18
    Thomas

    So when it comes to software, copyright is not a limitation to the property rights for the consumer. Since we only buy and pay for “the right to use”. That is what we agree on when we click the box in the installation window. Regardless of whether the software is delivered on a CD, DVD, downloaded or any other way of distribution.

    Movies and music – I assume that you have done your homework on the legals :-) But still, the copyright text and logo is clearly visible, so we know what we buy. We are aware of any limitations when we enter an agreement by paying for the CD or DVD. So any limitations of the property right is agreed upon between buyer and seller.

    However – I find the philosophical aspect on what we buy to be important.
    We are paying for the joy of listening to music, paying to laugh at a movie or cry, whatever we prefer. Not the spinning DVD or the string of 1′s and 0′s running through the computer. They are just enablers.
    So I am happy to have the opportunity to listen to Pavarotti. I gladly pay for that joy, since it brings value to my life. Even though he is dead, the poor guy.

  19. 19
    Fredrika

    Thomas January 31, 2011 – 20:45

    I appreciate the long reply! And will focus on two key issues, two fundamental misunderstandings.

    Yet it feels as i you didn’t read it completely, since my previous post deals with your two objections.

    Now – a philosophical discussion about price, value and what we buy.

    There’s no need for philosophical discussions, since we discuss actual facts and legislation? You are free to come to any philosophical conclusion you’re able to, but that’s doesn’t change the physical or legislative fact’s about what you pay for, in either example.

    This is not correct, you are making an important mistake. Formally and legally you buy a license to use the content, whether it is a movie, music or software.

    Again, No.

    That is clearly explained in my previous post. You do not need to buy the copy, or a license, to be allowed to use the content on the physical copy.

    Again you are trying to reverse the order of how society works, as if everything was forbidden until you have gotten permission to do things in it?

    Society does not work that way.

    “And since you pay for a license to use the content, there is no intrusion to the property rights of the consumer.”

    If we for a second ignores your confused and completely incorrect claim that you pay for a license, even if it was that way, as i explained in my previous post, that’s not the part that makes copyright an intrusion into property right.

    I’m not going to explain it again, i’m going to quote myself. Please read this again, several times if needed, until you understand it, so i don’t have to repeat it a third time.

    You can obtain the physical copy in any way possible, even illegal ones, and you’re still fully allowed to watch the movie, since it is never forbidden to watch a copy, no matter how you got a hold of it.

    But that’s not what this post is about, and why copyright is a limitation of property rights.

    The monopoly within copyright is a limitation of property rights, since it forbids people to use their psychical property in a manner that they might wish, and that they could, if copyright hadn’t existed, and forbid them to do so.

    With physical property, that people own and have access to, they can create physical copies, that they would own. They can burn or magnetize one’s and zero’s in any pattern they choose, on their harddrive’s or burnable disc’s. All the physical property involved in the physical and technical process of creating a physical copy is owned by them.

    But copyright forbids them to do that with their own physical property.

    If copyright hadn’t existed, and put a limit on possible actions, by cutting in to people’s property rights, they would have been able to manufacture as many physical copies as they would have liked to, and do whatever they liked with them, including selling or giving them away for free, since they own all the physical objects of property that are involved.

    Will it sink in this time?

    “The DVD, the little silver disc filled with 1′s and 0′s is just a media, a carrier – an enabler. No more than that.”

    Regardless of your philosophical view on the matter, the disc is a piece of physical property, that one can own.

    “To me, this is important. To pay for the value. And the value is the content, not the hardware.

    Yes, that’s important to pirates as well, that’s why it’s a good thing from a cultural economical point of view, to download all culture for free through filesharing, and then pay the creators through other business models, that doesn’t require or rely on cost-ineffective manufacturing and distribution of items that you can create and distribute yourself for free, and that doesn’t share money with obsolete business models and greedy middle hands, who’s participation or existence is in no way required, for the creators to be able to create their works.

    It seems you are a pirate after all, you just don’t understand it yet.

    Thomas January 31, 2011 – 22:43

    So when it comes to software, copyright is not a limitation to the property rights for the consumer.

    Yes, it still is, for the reasons that i quoted above from my previous post.

    “But still, the copyright text and logo is clearly visible, so we know what we buy. We are aware of any limitations when we enter an agreement by paying for the CD or DVD. So any limitations of the property right is agreed upon between buyer and seller.”

    No. Rights holders can print any kind of text and logos on their packaging, but that is completely irrelevant from a legislative point of view.

    Current copyright laws is what limits what you can do with the works. The rights holders are not the law(although they often like to claim they are), just because they print some misleading texts on the packaging.

    • 19.1
      Thomas

      Once again, I appreciate that you are taking the time to write long comments, I really do! The downside is that I have to focus my reply on what I find important.

      Lets start with the claimed limitations of the property right.
      It’s not applicable to software in general, since you only pay for the right to use.
      For music and movies – sure you can argue that copyright is a limitation to your property rights. As you have accepted when you enter an agreement and buy the CD or DVD.
      On the other hand – every other products you buy have different limitations to the consumers property rights. A car or a bike for example, you have to obey the traffic regulations – a true limitation to your property right.
      Even the chair has legal limitations to the property right. You are not allowed to dump it in the forest, you are not allowed to put it to fire – there are probably some dangerous chemicals.
      Guarantee is another exception from the unlimited property right. Since it defines a certain usage to be valid. And thus is a limitation to your full right to use your property in any way.
      Copyright is just another one of these exceptions. If you dont like the terms and conditions – dont buy!

      I am glad to read that you want to pay for the joy of listening to music and to watch a movie. Its an important part of life :-)
      And we are all in total agreement – CD’s and DVD’s are getting obsolete. There are smarter ways of duplicating and distributing culture!
      But there is a link missing in the logical, when you claim it should be for free. The distribution cost, to print the CD’s and DVD’s is only a minor part of the total production cost. The distribution is only one, small part of the entire business process. Working as a CD manufacturer is not a work for the future, but its only one profession out of hundreds needed to produce music och films.
      So why should it be for free?? When you also agree that you want to pay for the value?
      We seem to agree on that the CD/DVD’s are useless by themselves – the value is in the content, the film or the music.
      We also seem to agree on that we want to pay for the value, the joy and the fun of music and movies?
      But at the same time, you claim that you want to download all the fun stuff for free – I dont follow the logic?
      You are briefly mentioning “other business models”? Perhaps you can elaborate? But please have in mind that the production cost for “Pirates of the Caribbean” was in the ballpark of 500 million US$. I like those movies – a lot. And I want to see more like them! How about yourself?

      • 19.1.1
        Fredrika

        Thomas February 1, 2011 – 20:05

        Once again, I appreciate that you are taking the time to write long comments, I really do! The downside is that I have to focus my reply on what I find important.

        I would appreciate if you actually read what i write? It’s obvious you don’t, since you repeat your faulty claims, even after I’ve explained why they are faulty three times now? That’s the downside as i see it.

        Lets start with the claimed limitations of the property right.
        It’s not applicable to software in general, since you only pay for the right to use.

        Again, for the third time, that’s not why copyright is an intrusion into property right. I’ll just quote myself for the second time, can you please read the following segment over and over again, and try to understand where the intrusion into property right lies?

        The monopoly within copyright is a limitation of property rights, since it forbids people to use their psychical property in a manner that they might wish, and that they could, if copyright hadn’t existed, and forbid them to do so.

        With physical property, that people own and have access to, they can create physical copies, that they would own. They can burn or magnetize one’s and zero’s in any pattern they choose, on their harddrive’s or burnable disc’s. All the physical property involved in the physical and technical process of creating a physical copy is owned by them.

        But copyright forbids them to do that with their own physical property.

        If copyright hadn’t existed, and put a limit on possible actions, by cutting in to people’s property rights, they would have been able to manufacture as many physical copies as they would have liked to, and do whatever they liked with them, including selling or giving them away for free, since they own all the physical objects of property that are involved.

        Will it happen this time?

        For music and movies – sure you can argue that copyright is a limitation to your property rights. As you have accepted when you enter an agreement and buy the CD or DVD.

        You don’t enter any agreement when you buy a CD or DVD? You buy the physical copy, that’s it!!

        What you are allowed to do with that physical copy and the work on it, is not decided by the purchase, it is decided by current copyright law in the country where you currently are. Those limitations and intrusion into your property right applies regardless of how you got a hold of the copy. The purchase is not relevant in any way.

        I am glad to read that you want to pay for the joy of listening to music and to watch a movie.

        I never said that i want to pay for the joy of listening to music or watch a movie?

        There are smarter ways of duplicating and distributing culture!
        But there is a link missing in the logical, when you claim it should be for free.

        I don’t claim it should be for free? It is free, when you use filesharing. That price is not up for discussion.


        Working as a CD manufacturer is not a work for the future, but its only one profession out of hundreds needed to produce music och films.

        CD manufacturer is in no way a profession needed to produce music and films. CD manufacturer is a profession needed to produce physical CD’s. Producing physical CD’s is in no way an action that is required for music to be produced.

        So why should it be for free??

        That question is illogical, since it suggests that people should pay(someone?), for doing a job themselves, for themselves. That’s not how society works. You pay when you want someone else to do your job for you. Not when you do it yourself.

        When you also agree that you want to pay for the value?

        Which i haven’t agreed to.

        We seem to agree on that the CD/DVD’s are useless by themselves – the value is in the content, the film or the music.
        We also seem to agree on that we want to pay for the value, the joy and the fun of music and movies?
        But at the same time, you claim that you want to download all the fun stuff for free – I dont follow the logic?

        Actually, you need to read my previous posts over and over again, since your assumptions on what we agree is completely wrong from beginning to end. The reason you don’t see any logic, is because you don’t seem to comprehend the content of what i actually write.

        You are briefly mentioning “other business models”? Perhaps you can elaborate?

        If you don’t know of any other business models, that are based around the use of intellectual works, to generate profit, other than selling physical copies to end users.. Well then we’re in for a long night..

  20. 20

    Ricks’ chair analogy is all wrong — and so is the DVD analogy. It misses the distinction between copyrights and copies. (In Europe, the line may be a bit blurrier than in the U.S., so I can cut him some slack.) But no, it is not about “access,” as Anders’ post suggests. It is about intangible “works of authorship” and reproductions of those embodied in tangible media.

    A proper analogy would be a chair with a copyrighted decal pasted on it. His chair analogy fails because it is, to use his DVD analogy, like buying a blank DVD-R.

    When he says “when I buy a movie,” he fails to distinguish between “buying the copyright in a movie” and “buying a copy of a movie.” Consider this: If I buy a copy of a movie, say, on DVD, and the copyright owner sells the copyright to someone else, I still own my DVD copy of the movie, and am free to sell it, give it away, or use it as a wall decoration. But if I want to copy it, I will need to get permission from the new copyright owner.

    It is as simple as books, really. If I say “I wrote a book,” you would probably think I meant that I created a work of authorship. If I say, “I bought a book,” you would probably think I meant that I purchased a copy of a book. In both instances, you would probably be right. But if I were a book publisher, and said to a professional colleague, “I bought a book,” I might be referring to publishing (reproduction and distribution) rights.

    It is the same with “a movie” or “software” — the term can refer either to the intangible work of authorship or the tangible copy of it.

    So, back to Rick’s chair, it is no different than blank paper or a blank recordable DVD. If a work of authorship is reproduced onto the chair, onto the paper or onto the DVD, each of those tangible media become a “copy” of a work.

    Section 202 of the U.S. Copyright Act states:
    “Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied. Transfer of ownership of any material object, including the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first fixed, does not of itself convey any rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object; nor, in the absence of an agreement, does transfer of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive rights under a copyright convey property rights in any material object.”

    This is the often ignored first half of the U.S. Congress’ 1909 codification of the “first sale doctrine,” known to Rick more likely as “exhaustion” of the distribution right. The principle is not so much that the copyright owner’s distribution right in the copy is exhausted once the copyright owner parts with ownership of the tangible medium, as it is a recognition of this fundamental principle. The right to make copies is different than the right to sell a copy rightfully made.

    John

  21. 21
    Thomas

    Fredrika – we must talk… I feel that you don’t understand me ;-)

    There are some fundamentals where we seem to drift apart.
    SW for example. My point is that you do not buy any physical property. That’s the reason that I claim that there are no limitations to the property right. You buy a license to use the software. Big difference. We are paying for the right to use, not for any physical property.

    When buying a CD or a DVD, soon to be a good story to tell our grandchildren,
    we enter an agreement as soon as we buy them. Just like we enter an agreement when buying clothes or a chair. This agreement includes the exchange of money for certain property and other assets. For example a guarantee or the right to return the stuff. A combination of physical and immaterial stuff. Formally you enter the agreement in the exact moment as you leave the money to the cashier. Not only a simple purchase but also an agreement.
    Parts of the agreement you enter when buying a shoe, a chair or a CD is regulated by law, guarantee for example. Or copyright….

    Why should it be for free?
    Your reply is that the question is illogical, since we are “doing a job ourselves” – by filesharing. But this is far from the truth. Distribution is only a small part of the entire job.
    Yes – we can replace the poor CD-manufacturer by filesharing. Which is great!
    But we cannot replace the other hundreds of professions needed to produce music or film. Trust me, I am not even close to Johnny Depp, I just can’t replace him. As I can’t replace the other hundreds of different professions that are needed to produce a movie or music.

    You claim that I don’t read what you write, I disagree. But there are some obvious contradictions in your replies.

    Now – please don’t get me wrong. I would not mind chatting with you about different business models for a long night. But my point is rather for me to understand what models you are referring to? How would you like the see the business?

    Take care!

    • 21.1
      Fredrika

      Thomas February 2, 2011 – 19:35

      I feel that you don’t understand me

      I understand you perfectly, the problem lies within the fact that every claim you make, is false. When that is explained to you, nothing seems to register in your end.

      SW for example. My point is that you do not buy any physical property.

      Well, in real life, under current legislation, that is exactly what you do, and that fact has been explained to you now several times.

      That’s the reason that I claim that there are no limitations to the property right.

      And for the fourth time, even if that was so, that is not what makes copyright an intrusion into property right, the intrusion lies in a completely different aspect. I have explained to you three times where the actual intrusion into property right lies!?

      Nothing in what you write even hints that you have read or understood the now for the fourth time repeated segment?

      The monopoly within copyright is a limitation of property rights, since it forbids people to use their psychical property in a manner that they might wish, and that they could, if copyright hadn’t existed, and forbid them to do so.

      With physical property, that people own and have access to, they can create physical copies, that they would own. They can burn or magnetize one’s and zero’s in any pattern they choose, on their harddrive’s or burnable disc’s.

      All the physical property involved in the physical and technical process of creating a physical copy is owned by them.

      But copyright forbids them to do that with their own physical property.

      If copyright hadn’t existed, and put a limit on possible actions, by cutting in to people’s property rights, they would have been able to manufacture as many physical copies as they would have liked to, and do whatever they liked with them, including selling or giving them away for free, since they own all the physical objects of property that are involved.

      Is there something in this text that you don’t understand? Please let me know.

      Or maybe i could simplify it, in the following manner:

      The consumer owns his own harddrive, down to the smallest atom.

      On his own physical harddrive, the consumer can set different area’s to hold the value of either one’s or zero’s.

      Copyright forbids him from doing that, with his own physical property.

      Therefore copyright is an intrusion into property right.

      When buying a CD or a DVD..//..we enter an agreement as soon as we buy them.

      No, one does not enter an agreement!

      You buy the physical copy. Nothing else.

      What you are allowed to do with a physical copy does not depend on a possible previous purchase.

      Whether or not one has bought the physical copy has NO relevance to what one is allowed to do with the physical copy once one has access to it.

      Current copyright law in the country one currently occupies decides that, not the purchase.

      There exists no other legislative agreement as a result of a purchase other than that the physical copy has shifted ownership. That’s it.

      Can you please try to understand that?

      “Why should it be for free?
      Your reply is that the question is illogical, since we are “doing a job ourselves” – by filesharing. But this is far from the truth. Distribution is only a small part of the entire job.

      The only task you perform when you fileshare is to manufacture a physical copy.

      You do that job for yourself.

      You can not charge yourself for a job you yourself performed for yourself.

      The cost is free.

      The price is not up for discussion.

      Yes – we can replace the poor CD-manufacturer by filesharing.

      Well, that your first step forward here, in you last post you said that profession was required, now you’ve seem to have understood that your previous claim was false.

      But we cannot replace the other hundreds of professions needed to produce music or film.

      I’ve never claimed we could or should, so i don’t understand why you bring it up.

      “You claim that I don’t read what you write, I disagree.

      Well since you don’t even acknowledge the most important parts, or any of the actual argument’s, in my posts, it’s hard to believe otherwise.

      “But there are some obvious contradictions in your replies.”

      Maybe the problem lies within the fact that you don’t understand what I’m writing?

      Since every time you reference something I’ve written, you completely change the words I’ve used, and respond to something that i haven’t actually written?

      “But my point is rather for me to understand what models you are referring to?”

      Any business model, that is based around the use of an intellectual work, other then selling physical copies to consumers of course? You have already admitted to being a customer of such other models, so i don’t understand why you don’t seem to comprehend that such business already models exists?

      • 21.1.1
        Thomas

        Dear Fredrika

        I am struggling with how to reach out to you.
        The SW discussion is a perfect example, I claim that I am right, that I know I am right. And the same thing applies to you? You know that you are right….. And still we have different positions? Its no use for me to keep pushing and no use for you to keep saying that I don’t understand.
        Any ideas on how to proceed?
        Or is it just to realize that we will not get any further?

        Same thing with the claims that I dont read what you write, or dont understand. I would prefer not to give examples where you say “yes” in one reply and “no” in the other.

        But we seem to agree that its not a good future occupation to become a CD/DVD manufacturer?
        However – the consequence of that agreement still differs. I claim that its only one part of the production process that we can replace by downloading – and you claim that “the cost is free”. Yes – the cost for distribution is 0 – but the cost for the production is still there. Remember the 500 MUS$ for the Pirates of the Caribbean?

        Business models – can you please be more specific?
        What are the business models that you would like to see? I have been around for some time with different business models for intellectual property, but I am curious on your ideas.

        Finally – I do appreciate the conversation, I appreciate that you are taking the time. But do you have any ideas on to improve our mutual understanding?

  22. 22
    Fredrika

    Thomas February 2, 2011 – 22:34

    “The SW discussion is a perfect example, I claim that I am right, that I know I am right. And the same thing applies to you?”

    And yet that discussion is, as i have said several times now, irrelevant, since that’s not where copyright makes an intrusion into property rights.

    I claim that what you are forbidden to do with a physical copy of a copyrighted work applies regardless if you have actually purchased the copy, or gotten hold of in a another way.

    Therefore the purchase of the physical copy is not in any way relevant, as to how copyright is an intrusion into property rights.

    I have four times explained it to you in the exact same text, where the intrusion into property right by copyright takes place.

    That intrusion takes place regardless if a purchase has taken place, or not.

    You don’t have to purchase a physical copy, or reach any kind of agreement, to have your property right be intruded to by copyright.

    Is it getting through this time?

    “Any ideas on how to proceed?”

    Yes, you can explain why i’m not allowed to position the one´’s and zero’s on my harddrive in any pattern i choose, that i own with my property right, if copyright isn’t intruding into my property right?

    I physically can position them in any order i want, but something is intruding into my property right, and forbidding me to do so, what can that be, that’s making an intrusion into my property right? Hmm..

    Aah, it’s copyright!!

    “But we seem to agree that its not a good future occupation to become a CD/DVD manufacturer?
    However – the consequence of that agreement still differs. I claim that its only one part of the production process that we can replace by downloading – and you claim that “the cost is free”. Yes – the cost for distribution is 0 – but the cost for the production is still there. “

    First of all your claim is again false. Choice of distribution method is not a part of the production of the intellectual work.

    Replacing one distribution method with another, is not a replacement of any part in the production process of an intellectual work.

    The production of an intellectual work is in no way connected to or dependent of choice of distribution method.

    Second, my claim that the cost is free, has nothing to do with the production of an intellectual work, or the cost of it. It simply refers to the cost of manufacturing your own physical copies through filesharing.

    The cost for that is free. That’s has nothing to do with the production of an intellectual work, or the possible cost’s related to it.

    The replacement of one distributing model with another, is in no way connected to the production of the actual intellectual work.

    I have not disputed the fact that production of intellectual works can be connected to a cost.

    For some reason you seem to be confusing the production of the intellectual work, with distribution or manufacturing of physical copies.

    “Business models – can you please be more specific?
    What are the business models that you would like to see? I have been around for some time with different business models for intellectual property, but I am curious on your ideas.

    I never said i had any idéas? You seem to have completely lost the thread now?

    I claim that there are several different business models that are based around the use of an intellectual work, other than the single business model of selling physical copies to consumers, and that therefore production of intellectual works doesn’t stand or fall around any profit made from that single business model.

    My initial claim was the following:

    “that’s why it’s a good thing from a cultural economical point of view, to download all culture for free through filesharing, and then pay the creators through other business models, that doesn’t require or rely on cost-ineffective manufacturing and distribution of items that you can create and distribute yourself for free, and that doesn’t share money with obsolete business models and greedy middle hands, who’s participation or existence is in no way required, for the creators to be able to create their works.”

    My claim is that it is not wise from a cultural economical point of view, for consumers to spend money on business models, that only perform a task that consumers can perform themselves for free.

    That’s not cost effective. That’s the complete opposite, that’s a waste of consumers money, which will lead to less culture being produced.

    The consumers money is more cost effectively spent on other business models, that are based around the use of intellectual works, for tasks that the consumer can’t perform themselves for free.

    You have now admitted to being around several of those business models, so why should i have to name them to you?

  23. 23
    Fredrika

    Thomas February 2, 2011 – 22:34

    “The SW discussion is a perfect example, I claim that I am right, that I know I am right. And the same thing applies to you?”

    And yet that discussion is, as i have said several times now, irrelevant, since that’s not where copyright makes an intrusion into property rights.

    I claim that what you are forbidden to do with a physical copy of a copyrighted work applies regardless if you have actually purchased the copy, or gotten hold of in a another way.

    Therefore the purchase of the physical copy is not in any way relevant, as to how copyright is an intrusion into property rights.

    I have four times explained it to you in the exact same text, where the intrusion into property right by copyright takes place.

    That intrusion takes place regardless if a purchase has taken place, or not.

    You don’t have to purchase a physical copy, or reach any kind of agreement, to have your property right be intruded to by copyright.

    Is it getting through this time?

    “Any ideas on how to proceed?”

    Yes, you can explain why i’m not allowed to position the one´’s and zero’s on my harddrive in any pattern i choose, that i own with my property right, if copyright isn’t intruding into my property right?

    I physically can position them in any order i want, but something is intruding into my property right, and forbidding me to do so, what can that be, that’s making an intrusion into my property right? Hmm..

    Aah, it’s copyright!!

    “But we seem to agree that its not a good future occupation to become a CD/DVD manufacturer?
    However – the consequence of that agreement still differs. I claim that its only one part of the production process that we can replace by downloading – and you claim that “the cost is free”. Yes – the cost for distribution is 0 – but the cost for the production is still there. “

    First of all your claim is again false. Choice of distribution method is not a part of the production of the intellectual work.

    Replacing one distribution method with another, is not a replacement of any part in the production process of an intellectual work.

    The production of an intellectual work is in no way connected to or dependent of choice of distribution method.

    Second, my claim that the cost is free, has nothing to do with the production of an intellectual work, or the cost of it. It simply refers to the cost of manufacturing your own physical copies through filesharing.

    The cost for that is free. That’s has nothing to do with the production of an intellectual work, or the possible cost’s related to it.

    The replacement of one distributing model with another, is in no way connected to the production of the actual intellectual work.

    I have not disputed the fact that production of intellectual works can be connected to a cost.

    For some reason you seem to be confusing the production of the intellectual work, with distribution or manufacturing of physical copies.

    “Business models – can you please be more specific?
    What are the business models that you would like to see? I have been around for some time with different business models for intellectual property, but I am curious on your ideas.

    I never said i had any idéas? You seem to have completely lost the thread now?

    I claim that there are several different business models that are based around the use of an intellectual work, other than the single business model of selling physical copies to consumers, and that therefore production of intellectual works doesn’t stand or fall around any profit made from that single business model.

    My initial claim was the following:

    “that’s why it’s a good thing from a cultural economical point of view, to download all culture for free through filesharing, and then pay the creators through other business models, that doesn’t require or rely on cost-ineffective manufacturing and distribution of items that you can create and distribute yourself for free, and that doesn’t share money with obsolete business models and greedy middle hands, who’s participation or existence is in no way required, for the creators to be able to create their works.”

    My claim is that it is not wise from a cultural economical point of view, for consumers to spend money on business models, that only perform a task that consumers can perform themselves for free.

    That’s not cost effective. That’s the complete opposite, that’s a waste of consumers money, which will lead to less culture being produced.

    The consumers money is more cost effectively spent on other business models, that are based around the use of intellectual works, for tasks that the consumer can’t perform themselves for free.

    You have now admitted to being around several of those business models, so why should i have to name them to you?

  24. 24
    Thomas

    Dear Fredrika

    It is kind of funny – we are discussing economic ideas, dating from the age of the industrialization, we are talking about CD’s and DVD’s although we both agree on that they are about to become obsolete.

    The next generation of distribution is all about “the cloud”. This brings some interesting questions. When you buy software using “the cloud” its a true usage model. There are no silver discs or no 1′s and 0′s one any local computer. A true pay per use model, you don’t even have to download the software – great :-)
    The question of copyright is becoming totally irrelevant.
    The same goes for streaming music and movies.

    But there is also an interesting consequence. If you use the same software, in the same way, do you still claim that the copyright is a limitation of the property rights? After all, the same usage, the same software, the same vendor – the only difference is the distribution. On a CD/DVD, downloaded or used over the cloud. Everything is equal, besides the distribution. To me it does not make any sense that the differences in distribution should make any difference in regards to any limitation of the property rights.

    We seems to agree on that it makes sense to keep the production and distribution of music, movies and IP separated?
    So – to me it does not make any sense that music, films or IP’s should be for free as you claim. Since we as consumers can’t perform the only valuable part of the process, the production. We can’t add any value – I am not Johnny Depp, I can’t do 3D animation. My skills or looks doesn’t add any value in film or music production. Sorry to make you disappointed.

    In regards to business models, you do mention a business model where you can share any file for free and then “someone else” would pay? I was only a curious on the model. No more and no less.

    Take care out there

    • 24.1
      Fredrika

      Thomas February 3, 2011 – 18:22

      “It is kind of funny – we are discussing economic ideas”

      Actually no, that’s not at all what i’m discussing? I’m discussing and arguing about actually physical and legislative facts.

      Facts and an actual argumentation that you don’t even acknowledge.

      I ask factual question’s, to move forward in the reasoning, but you don’t acknowledge the questions, little less answer them.

      You don’t participate in the actual argumentation. You completely avoid it, and the actual claims and arguments i lay forward, every time you post a new comment.

      There’s absolutely nothing funny about this.

      “we are talking about CD’s and DVD’s although we both agree on that they are about to become obsolete.”

      Actually, my main focus regarding my argument’s that point to where copyright performs an intrusion into to physical property has nothing do to with CD’s and DVD’s, they have to do with the users physical harddrive or mass storage unit, and they are in no way becoming obsolete.

      “The next generation of distribution is all about “the cloud”. This brings some interesting questions.”

      So therefore you don’t feel the need to respond to, or answer any actual questions or argument’s placed before you?

      “When you buy software using “the cloud” its a true usage model. There are no silver discs or no 1′s and 0′s one any local computer.”

      Ooh, so if one stream’s something to one’s computer, there are no one’s and zero’s on one’s computer? Hhmm..

      Well, even if that was so, that discussion still has no relevance to my point about where copyright intrudes into property right, so i don’t understand why you bring it up.

      “A true pay per use model, you don’t even have to download the software – great :-)
      The question of copyright is becoming totally irrelevant.”

      The question of copyright is becoming irrelevant because of streaming? Ok..

      However, there are those with an extremely high knowledge about computer technology, that claims that streaming is downloading..

      “If you use the same software, in the same way, do you still claim that the copyright is a limitation of the property rights?”

      Yes of course? Since nothing of what you’ve mentioned so far about the cloud or future distribution models has anything to do with my previous claims about where copyright’s intrusion into property right takes place?

      That intrusion takes place in a completely different place, and it does so regardless of if you buy physical copies, access to streaming, or if you don’t buy anything at all.

      As i have explained to you several times before, a possible purchase of media or content is not a relevant factor at all to the intrusion into property right.

      Maybe if you stop confusing yourself with focusing on purchases and choice of distribution models, you’ll get it?

      “After all, the same usage, the same software, the same vendor – the only difference is the distribution. On a CD/DVD, downloaded or used over the cloud. Everything is equal, besides the distribution. To me it does not make any sense that the differences in distribution should make any difference in regards to any limitation of the property rights.”

      And it doesn’t. Copyright still exists only through an intrusion into property right.

      “We seems to agree on that it makes sense to keep the production and distribution of music, movies and IP separated?”

      We do? In several of your precious post’s you have argued as if they where one and the same, and could not be separated, but now you have switched standpoint completely?

      “So – to me it does not make any sense that music, films or IP’s should be for free as you claim.”

      I don’t claim that they should be free? I claim that access to works is free, if you produce the copies yourself through filesharing.

      As i have said several times, that price is not up for discussion.

      That price can never be anything but free.

      Free is the only price that can occur when you yourself perform a task for you yourself.

      You can not pay or charge yourself money, for a task you yourself performs for you yourself.

      “Since we as consumers can’t perform the only valuable part of the process, the production.”

      You just said that you finally had understood that distribution and production of an intellectual work was two separate processes, that shouldn’t be confused or treated as one and the same, yet now you do just that, again?

      “In regards to business models, you do mention a business model where you can share any file for free and then “someone else” would pay? I was only a curious on the model. No more and no less.”

      First of all, you yourself said that you already know about several other business models that are based around the use of an intellectual work, therefore there’s no need for me to make a list of them.

      Second, i never mentioned a specific business model, where the fact that you can download everything for free constitutes a relevant part of the business model. Although such business models also exists.

      Third of all, i never claimed “someone else” should pay. That’s a false quotation you’re making.

      What i wrote was this, maybe you should read it again, a couple of times..

      “that’s why it’s a good thing from a cultural economical point of view, to download all culture for free through filesharing, and then pay the creators through other business models, that doesn’t require or rely on cost-ineffective manufacturing and distribution of items that you can create and distribute yourself for free, and that doesn’t share money with obsolete business models and greedy middle hands, who’s participation or existence is in no way required, for the creators to be able to create their works.”

      You’ve already admitted to being around several of those other business models, so you already know about them. Why do you ask about something you already know about?

  25. 25
    Thomas

    Dear Fredrika

    Perhaps its all a matter of language, a matter of words.
    Words like production and distribution for example. When I write “production” I refer to the actual production of the content, all the work from finding investors finalize the “master tapes”. All the hundreds of different professions involved in the actual production of the content.
    Distribution is all about to get this content out to the consumers. By printing CD’s or DVS’s, by setting up a downloading site or by streaming the content. And of course by the radio, cinemas, TV’s or any of the large number of distribution channels.
    It I understand you right, when you are talking about “production” you refer to when you download and burn a CD. Which in my world is only distribution.
    A part of the process that only adds very little value.
    So in my language, we as consumers do not participate in any part of the production process, only in the distribution process.

    “Free is the only price that can occur when you yourself perform a task for you yourself.
    You can not pay or charge yourself money, for a task you yourself performs for you yourself.”
    And the only task you perform is a part of the distribution process, therefore is makes sense to pay for the parts that you don’t perform. The production of the actual content.
    On the other hand, if we introduce the concept of value based pricing, one could argue that you should pay more for the downloaded copy than the CD, since its more convenient for you. But that’s taking the discussion to the next level – and we are not there yet :-)

    Getting back to the words. One of the key concepts with streaming content and using “the cloud” is that you don’t store anything locally. The 1′s and 0′s are executed locally but there is no local storage. And this is the way that we are all going – so the discussion of physical copies is obsolete, its history.
    As is the discussion of “ownership” of the 1′s and 0′s, since you never even store them on a device that you own. You only execute them.
    This is good – since we can now discuss the value of the content, rather than than the value of different forms of distribution.
    Perhaps this pricing model can also spread to the world of physical objects. I would prefer to pay for the right to use a chair, rather than for the chair itself.

    And in my opinion – the pirates and the pirate party, are getting all obsolete, at least in the context of filesharing. Its old school, referring to the economics of the 18:th century and also to old technology. Something that we will tell our grandchildren :-)

    Back the the words again. You claim that I make a false quotation in regards to “someone else is paying”. Please let me explain my interpretation.

    “…that’s why it’s a good thing from a cultural economical point of view, to download all culture for free… ” To me, this means that the consumer, the user don’t pay. Since it is for free.
    .”..and then pay the creators through other business models,… ” Since the end user are not paying, but the creators are getting paid by “other business models” – to me that means that someone is paying them.

    Why do I ask about your ideas on other business models? Simple! For two reasons. First, that I am curious on how you would like to see the world – thats the most important one. The second reason is also about curiosity, do you really know of other business models or is it just some nice words? Since I don’t have a clue on you background, your education or your experience from the entertainment or software industry I was curious to see how you replied.

    I am not sure if we are doing any progress in the discussion, although I appreciate it. I am also a bit worried, I sometimes get the feeling that you are angry? My apologies if I am wrong. But please don’t be angry.
    Remember the words from Yoda: “Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering” – we don’t want that, do we?

    • 25.1
      Fredrika

      Thomas February 5, 2011 – 09:34

      “When I write “production” I refer to the actual production of the content, all the work from finding investors finalize the “master tapes”. All the hundreds of different professions involved in the actual production of the content.”

      As of course do i.

      “It I understand you right, when you are talking about “production” you refer to when you download and burn a CD.”

      No, you missunderstand completely. When i talk about production, i talk about production of the content.

      “Which in my world is only distribution.
      A part of the process that only adds very little value.
      So in my language, we as consumers do not participate in any part of the production process, only in the distribution process.”

      I have never claimed otherwise.

      “And the only task you perform is a part of the distribution process, therefore is makes sense to pay for the parts that you don’t perform. The production of the actual content.”

      That was exactly what i suggested in my original claim. “then pay the creators through other business models”.

      “One of the key concepts with streaming content and using “the cloud” is that you don’t store anything locally. The 1′s and 0′s are executed locally but there is no local storage.”

      Ooh there’s local storage alright, especially if that is what the consumer instructs his software to do with the stream.

      “And this is the way that we are all going – so the discussion of physical copies is obsolete, its history.”

      Because you say so? You are aware of that that’s nothing that you or the media industry decides? If the consumers wants physical copy’s on their harddrives, they will get them, by manufacturing them themselves.

      There are many different environments where one wants to play media, and in several of those streaming will never be able to function, so i can assure you, physical copies will always remain extremely important to consumers.

      “As is the discussion of “ownership” of the 1′s and 0′s, since you never even store them on a device that you own. You only execute them.”

      That’s the consumers choice, if he chooses to store them. If he does, he owns them.

      “This is good – since we can now discuss the value of the content, rather than than the value of different forms of distribution.”

      Actually, that’s bad, from a culture economical point of view, since setting up controlled streaming and cloud services for distribution costs money. Money that never has to be spent if the consumers handle the distribution themselves, through filesharing, which is also is a cloud service, with the benefit that it has no costs related to it, and a second benefit that it will behave in the exact manner that the consumers prefers, completely without any restrictions or filters, since they control it, not the content industry.

      For some reason you are arguing that consumers should spend money on things that cost’s additional money, besides the actual production cost of the content, when they can get free access to the content, by performing that task themselves.

      Even you have to understand that that’s not cost effective from a cultural economical point of view, for consumers to spend additional money on other unnecessary things, then the actual production of content?

      “Perhaps this pricing model can also spread to the world of physical objects. I would prefer to pay for the right to use a chair, rather than for the chair itself.”

      That pricing model already exists in the real world, it’s called renting.

      Some people prefer it, and therefore entrepreneurs offer that service to customers as a business model.

      You are free to use that business model if you like. But most prefer to own things, since that has so many advantages over renting.

      “And in my opinion – the pirates and the pirate party, are getting all obsolete, at least in the context of filesharing. Its old school, referring to the economics of the 18:th century and also to old technology.”

      Well, since you praise cloud distribution as the future, but at the same time doesn’t seem to understand that filesharing is cloud distribution, none of your conclusions makes any sense whatsoever.

      Since there are hundreds of millions of filesharer’s all over the world, a number that is growing non the less, it seems more as if you’re not describing the actual present, but rather the future you’re hoping for.

      And absolutely nothing of what you have written up to this point has any bearing on my initial point, or Rick’s post, that copyright can only exist through an intrusion into property right. That’s still the indisputable nature of things.

      The consumer’s still own their harddrive. Either they are allowed to place the one’s and zero’s on it as they choose, or something represents an intrusion into their property right, and forbids them to do so.

      You seem to argue that copyright is not needed in the future, and therefore i hope that you work for it to be abolished, so that it will stop to intrude into peoples property right.

      “You claim that I make a false quotation in regards to “someone else is paying”. Please let me explain my interpretation.”

      Interpretation? The fact that you interpret things doesn’t make it ok for you to make false quotations?

      If you only wanted to explain your interpretation you should have skipped the quotations, and written the sentence without them.

      “…that’s why it’s a good thing from a cultural economical point of view, to download all culture for free… ”“To me, this means that the consumer, the user don’t pay. Since it is for free.”

      Correct, the consumer doesn’t pay for the actual distribution and manufacturing of the physical copies, since he performs those tasks himself.

      .”..and then pay the creators through other business models,… ”“Since the end user are not paying, but the creators are getting paid by “other business models” – to me that means that someone is paying them.”

      I never said the end users shouldn’t pay?

      I said it’s a good thing from an cultural economical point of view to pay for something else, than the part that consumers can perform themselves for free.

      “Why do I ask about your ideas on other business models? Simple! For two reasons. First, that I am curious on how you would like to see the world – thats the most important one.”

      But i have never said i have any new idea’s on other business models? Most of those we have today work just fine, the content industry’s current record turnovers is clear evidence of that.

      “The second reason is also about curiosity, do you really know of other business models or is it just some nice words?”

      You can be sure that i know of all those other business models that you mentioned that you’ve been around. We know about the same thing, therefore there’s no reason for me to make a list of them.

      “I am not sure if we are doing any progress in the discussion, although I appreciate it.”

      Well, most parts of it consists of me trying to explain things to you over and over again, until you stop misunderstanding what i write.

      The second part is you making claim after claim that is simply not true, where after someone has to explain to you that you are wrong, and why.

      Like when you claimed that consumers don’t buy the physical copy, but rather a license to use the content.

      Both me and Rick explained to you several times that under current consumers laws you are completely wrong. The only thing you buy, when you buy a content filled optical disk, is indeed the physical copy.

      What you later can do with that copy or content is in no way legislatively controlled by or related to the purchase, but current copyright law in the country where the consumer currently resides.

      Current consumer legislation says that you’re wrong, your response is that you know that you are right.

      Then there’s the part with you, as far as i can tell, still don’t understanding where copyright performs an intrusion into property right, although i’ve explained it over five times now, and you never acknowledge any part of what i write when i try to explain that, or answer any related questions to it.

      But i would say we’re making some progress. You’ve stopped making some of your faulty claims. Instead you immediately slip into a new sidetrack in the discussion, trying to argue your desire of how thing should be, from a different point of view, as if it didn’t matter that your were wrong with your previous claim.

      Well, that’s how some people argue. Never admit to being wrong, never acknowledge arguments that proves you are wrong, instead try to get it right by attacking from another angle, and pretend the previous parts of discussion never took place. Coincidentally that’s also the exact tactic of an Internet troll.

      But that’s the dance pirates do with anti-pirates.

  26. 26
    Thomas

    Dear Fredrika

    Once again – I do appreciate that you take the time for the discussion!
    But your last reply reminds me of a quote from Confucius. “When you listen to mr Cheng talking about mr Wu, you will learn more about mr Cheng than mr Wu”
    The quote might not be all correct, but I hope that the meaning comes through?
    Just as you claim that I don not read, do not understand and is jumping around, so are your replies. Lots of contradictions, misunderstandings and new arguments.

    Cloud computing vs filesharing for example. Your claim that “filesharing is cloud computing” is perfect nonsense – to me it also shows that you have not done your homework. The simple fact is that filesharing and cloud computing are each others opposites. Filesharing means that you share and install software on your local hard disc – cloud computing means that you never store or install software on your local hard disc. They are the opposites.
    Think Facebook or Google – examples of cloud computing. You will never have a local Facebook or Google installation.

    Your claims on what you want the consumers to pay for or to be for free are also full of contradictions. It should be “for free” but still you say that you never claimed that the end-users should not pay??
    It can’t be both – either the consumers pay or it is for free.

    You also have difficulties to sort out the concepts of physical copies, files and SW installations,
    “…If the consumers wants physical copy’s on their harddrives…”
    A physical copy is a CD/DVD or another media – you can’t have a physical copy on your harddrive. Sorry – you cant do. On you harddrive you can only have files or installed software – but not a the physical copy.
    Its different concepts.

    “Both me and Rick explained to you several times that under current consumers laws you are completely wrong. The only thing you buy, when you buy a content filled optical disk, is indeed the physical copy.”
    Once again, this is just not correct. Mr Falkvinge and I agreed on that the only thing you acquire, when you buy a software, is a license to use. Please go back and read mr Falkvinges reply. And please do your homework on software licensing.
    I made make a mistake in regards to music and movies, where you actually acquire the physical copy. But then again, you agree on the terms & conditions when buying, when you enter the agreement.

    “You seem to argue that copyright is not needed in the future, and therefore i hope that you work for it to be abolished, so that it will stop to intrude into peoples property right.”
    On the contrary – to me copyright and patents are important. Important both to you and me. The welfare and the economy of Sweden depends on them. Without them Sweden would lose tens of thousands or hundred of thousands of jobs…. I would say they are very important both to you and to me.
    Copyright and patents pays your bills, your food and your rent.

    Its too bad, but I have seen this before. Pirates that just have not done the homework. That don’t have the basic knowledge. The fancy rhetoric is just empty – without substance.

    Once again Fredrika – “anger leads to hate and hate leads to suffering”
    It was meant as a joke – but it turned out to be more truth in the words than I anticipated. Please – don’t be so angry – after all its all about entertainment :-)

    Finally – please take care! I have enjoyed our brief encounter and I sincerely wish you all the best in the future :-)

    • 26.1
      Fredrika

      Thomas February 5, 2011 – 18:19

      “Your claim that “filesharing is cloud computing” is perfect nonsense”

      Well, since i never made that claim..

      That’s the second time you produce a false quote.

      “Your claims on what you want the consumers to pay for or to be for free are also full of contradictions. It should be “for free” but still you say that you never claimed that the end-users should not pay??
      It can’t be both – either the consumers pay or it is for free.”

      Again you should read what i wrote more carefully. You seem to have a really hard time to comprehend what i actually wrote in the intial claim.

      I wrote:

      “that’s why it’s a good thing from a cultural economical point of view, to download all culture for free through filesharing, and then pay the creators through other business models, that doesn’t require or rely on cost-ineffective manufacturing and distribution of items that you can create and distribute yourself for free, “

      I claim that you can’t pay for something that is free.

      For the consumers to distribute and manufacture their own copies through filesharing is free. That’s the only price possible. That price is not up for discussion.

      The next part was that then the consumers instead pay for the creation of the content through other business models, that provide something that the consumers can’t create themselves.

      It’s very much possible to do both, to both download everything for free, and then to pay the creators through other business models that are based around the use of intellectual works. You know, those business models that you claim to have been around.

      “A physical copy is a CD/DVD or another media – you can’t have a physical copy on your harddrive. Sorry – you cant do. On you harddrive you can only have files or installed software – but not a the physical copy.”

      Oh, so a CD or a DVD does not contain files? Would you say that an optical disc without any files on it, is a physical copy of an intellectual work? No, of course not.

      So, it’s therefore the presence of the actual files that determine whether or not it’s a physical copy of an intellectual work you have before yourself?

      And therefore you claim that it’s only a physical copy of an intellectual work if the one’s and zero’s are pressed on to an optical disc, but not if it consists of the same one’s and zero’s burned or magnetized on a rewritable disc or harddrive?

      “Its different concepts.”

      Ooh but it isn’t. A file on a optical or mechanical media consists of a number of one’s and zero’s in a string(or not), on a piece of physical hardware.

      A digital file, pressed, burned or magnetized on to a physical optical disk, or a harddrive, is a physical copy.

      Regardless of your philosophical opinion on that matter, that still has no relevance to the topic of Rick’s post, or my claim to where the factual intrusion from copyright into property right takes place.

      You know that claim that you after ten or so post’s still hasn’t acknowledged, or replied to.

      “Once again, this is just not correct. Mr Falkvinge and I agreed on that the only thing you acquire, when you buy a software, is a license to use. Please go back and read mr Falkvinges reply.”

      Actually, it’s you who need to go back and read what Rick wrote. He wrote two relevant things:

      “As a consumer, you can buy one of two things: goods or services. This is written into the consumer protection laws in most member states of Europe.

      When you are buying the CD, you are buying the physical item, and not a service. Formally and legally.”

      This part is a legislative fact. It applies to both music-CD’s, DVD’s and disc’s containing computer software. There no exception depending on what type of files or content that are placed on the physical disc. You buy the physical item, then you own it. That’s it.

      The second relevant part he wrote was the following:

      “You’re quite right — software is different, or at least, so the vendors would have us believe. They are trying to make it neither a good or a service but a contract, through various legal means.”

      The fact that vendors try to have consumers believe that different rules applies when you buy software placed on physical discs, doesn’t make it so legislatively. Same legislative rules applies as when you by disc with music or movies. You but the physical disc. You own it.

      You and Rick did not agree, you obviously just didn’t understand what he actually wrote.

      “But then again, you agree on the terms & conditions when buying, when you enter the agreement.”

      Again no, not under current consumer legislation. Your claim is not factual, it’s simply based on how you wish that things should be.

      As Rick said, “software is different, or at least, so the vendors would have us believe.

      You have simply fallen for their false claim, and taken it as if it was the truth, which consumer laws clearly says it isn’t.

      “On the contrary – to me copyright and patents are important.”

      Ok, then i misunderstood you. Since you previously claimed that “The question of copyright is becoming totally irrelevant“, i thought you meant that the need for copyright was over. If it isn’t over, then i would argue that the question of copyright is very much alive.

      “Important both to you and me. The welfare and the economy of Sweden depends on them. Without them Sweden would lose tens of thousands or hundred of thousands of jobs…. I would say they are very important both to you and to me.
      Copyright and patents pays your bills, your food and your rent.”

      Well, those are strong claims that you put forward. Although i don’t remember having read that much evidence to support those claims in any independent studies published over the last twenty year’s or so. Quite the opposite actually.

      And in the real world i can’t help noticing, that the countries who doesn’t really care that much about copyright and patents, are the countries who’s economy are growing the fastest, and the country that’s seems to care the most about it, is the one who’s economy is about to totally collapse.

      But that could just be a coincidence, so let’s not diverge any further from the topic on this post.

      • 26.1.1
        Thomas

        Dear Fredrika

        I will leave this thread, but just a final remark.
        If you are stuck in a hole, at least stop digging. We can all read what you wrote about filesharing and cloud computing. Same thing goes for the other issues.

        But the final remark I wanted to make is your claims about any correlation between countries that enforce copyright and patents and economy. There is no such correlation – unless you claim that countries like Mali, Sudan or Liberia are caring a lot about copyright?
        On the other hand, even if there was such a correlation the conclusion would be that countries like the US, Sweden have five to ten times as strong GDP/person compared to countries like China and India.
        Would that be thanks to copyright and patents?
        Please – don’t try to use statistics in a stupid way.

        I don’t see the need for any independent studies to claim that copyrights and patents pay our bills, our schools and our welfare. We have a number of successful Swedish companies, like Ericsson, Scania, ABB, Volvo, SKF, Sandvik, SAAB, Astra-Zeneca and many others that are all built on innovation and to capitalize the innovations. This could not have been done without copyrights and patents. And these companies and their employees pays a substantial amount of taxes. If they had not been around, someone else would have paid the same amount of taxes. I have understood that the proud pirates like the concept of “someone else is paying” but in this case it would have been you and me.
        I can’t see the need for independent studies to verify this conclusion.

        Once again – take care!

  27. 27
    Moo

    See also Stephan Kinsella – “Against Intellectual Property”

    http://mises.org/books/against.pdf

    Fact is, copyright undermines property rights.

    • 27.1
      Thomas

      But Moo – when you acquire a CD or a DVD you accept the terms and conditions. Where you agree on the copyright.
      Just like when you are buying a bicycle, you accept that you have to obey the traffic regulations. Or when you buy an apartment, where you accept that you only buy the right to use it. Or when you buy a chair – where you accept the T&C’s that regulates your right as a consumer. But where you also accepts a number of things you cant do with the chair, to comply with the T&C’s.
      I am sure that you can falsify me, but I can’t think of any object you buy, where there are no limitations to the property rights!

  28. 28
    Fredrika

    Thomas February 6, 2011 – 13:15

    “I will leave this thread”

    Without even answering the actual questions that are asked to you, or respond to the actual claims that are placed before you??

    “We can all read what you wrote about filesharing and cloud computing.”

    Yes we can, and when we do that, we can all see that neither i, nor you, used the term cloud computing.

    I never claimed that cloud computing is the same thing as filesharing. Nor did you make any previous claims about cloud computing.

    I claimed that filesharing is a “cloud service”, which it is, since the content isn’t stored at a single source location which all users have to access, but the content is instead spread out over the visitors of the cloud, the actual filesharers.

    If you for just once try to read what i actually write, then just maybe you’ll understand it, and then you can give a relevant response to it.

    And as i said in my previous comment, regardless of your philosophical views on that particular subject, it does not change the original claim in Rick’s post, or my following claims, to the indisputable fact that copyright can only exist trough an intrusion into consumers property right.

    Nor does it change the fact that your previous claims about what takes place during a purchase of a physical copy was incorrect. You do not enter a contractual or legislative agreement, as you completely incorrectly claimed.

    When you buy a physical item, that’s the only thing you buy, and you then own it, and that is a legislative fact even if you should happen to buy a CD, a DVD or a disc filled with copyrighted content, such as software.

    And finally it does not change my claim that it’s smarter from cultural economical point of view, for consumers to download all content for free through filesharing, and then pay the creators through other business models.

    “This could not have been done without copyrights and patents.”

    Since we don’t have access to an alternate universe, where copyright and patents doesn’t exist, you really don’t know that for a fact, you just assume that’s the case.

    “I have understood that the proud pirates like the concept of “someone else is paying””

    Well there’s another misunderstanding on your behalf. According to several independent studies pirates are actually the consumers who spend the most money on the content industry.

    “I can’t see the need for independent studies to verify this conclusion.”

    I guess it’s just a coincidence then, that those independent studies that do exist doesn’t really support you personal conclusion?

    Maybe that’s why you don’t see any need for them? Since you don’t like your own personal conclusions to be contradicted?

  29. 29
    Fredrika

    Thomas February 6, 2011 – 13:15

    “I will leave this thread”

    Without even answering the actual questions that are asked to you, or respond to the actual claims that are placed before you??

    “We can all read what you wrote about filesharing and cloud computing.”

    Yes we can, and when we do that, we can all see that neither i, nor you, used the term cloud computing.

    I never claimed that cloud computing is the same thing as filesharing. Nor did you make any previous claims about cloud computing.

    I claimed that filesharing is a “cloud service”, which it is, since the content isn’t stored at a single source location which all users have to access, but the content is instead spread out over the visitors of the cloud, the actual filesharers.

    If you for just once try to read what i actually write, then just maybe you’ll understand it, and then you can give a relevant response to it.

    And as i said in my previous comment, regardless of your philosophical views on that particular subject, it does not change the original claim in Rick’s post, or my following claims, to the indisputable fact that copyright can only exist trough an intrusion into consumers property right.

    Nor does it change the fact that your previous claims about what takes place during a purchase of a physical copy was incorrect. You do not enter a contractual or legislative agreement, as you completely incorrectly claimed.

    When you buy a physical item, that’s the only thing you buy, and you then own it, and that is a legislative fact even if you should happen to buy a CD, a DVD or a disc filled with copyrighted content, such as software.

    And finally it does not change my claim that it’s smarter from cultural economical point of view, for consumers to download all content for free through filesharing, and then pay the creators through other business models.

    “This could not have been done without copyrights and patents.”

    Since we don’t have access to an alternate universe, where copyright and patents doesn’t exist, you really don’t know that for a fact, you just assume that’s the case.

    “I have understood that the proud pirates like the concept of “someone else is paying””

    Well there’s another misunderstanding on your behalf. According to several independent studies pirates are actually the consumers who spend the most money on the content industry.

    “I can’t see the need for independent studies to verify this conclusion.”

    I guess it’s just a coincidence then, that those independent studies that do exist doesn’t really support you personal conclusion?

    Maybe that’s why you don’t see any need for them? Since you don’t like your own personal conclusions to be contradicted?

  30. 30

    Hello Rick,

    Thank you for this text. We found it inspiring so we translated it in French and published it on our blog here :
    http://partipirate.org/blog/com.php?id=1382

    marou
    Parti Pirate France

  31. 31

    [url=http://www.jpbottegavenetashop.com/]ボッテガ 財布 メンズ[/url]

    [url=http://www.guccionlinebuy.com/]グッチ バッグ 新作 2013[/url]

    [url=http://www.guccionlinebuy.com/]グッチ バッグ[/url]

Add a Comment

4 × 5 =   

On Facebook

More in Copyright Monopoly

Bottles of Snake Oil - Photo by Jagrap on Flickr
29

Copyright Monopoly – Zacqary Adam Green

Copyright Monopoly – Zacqary Adam Green

photo_10071_20090418-646x363
71

Copyright Monopoly – David Collier-Brown

Copyright Monopoly – David Collier-Brown

le_tresor_rackham_le_rouge_1280x1024
11

Copyright Monopoly – Lionel Dricot

Copyright Monopoly – Lionel Dricot

Books before copyright
99

Copyright Monopoly – Johnny Olsson

Copyright Monopoly – Johnny Olsson

About The Author

Rick is the founder of the first Pirate Party and is a political evangelist, traveling around Europe and the world to talk and write about ideas of a sensible information policy. He has a tech entrepreneur background and loves whisky.

More On Infopolicy

523377_63619557
4

Infopolicy – Henrik Brändén

Infopolicy – Henrik Brändén

National_Security_Agency_headquarters,_Fort_Meade,_Maryland_public_domain_image
144

Infopolicy – Christian Engström

Infopolicy – Christian Engström

"God Hates Signs" next to "God Hates Fags" protesters
7

Freedom of Speech – Zacqary Adam Green

Freedom of Speech – Zacqary Adam Green

Many different currencies - CC photo by epSos.de
45

Diversity – Zacqary Adam Green

Diversity – Zacqary Adam Green

Valve mechanism
91

Freedom of Speech

Freedom of Speech

Collaborative whiteboard at OuiShare 2012, full of wonderful ideas for venture capitalists to ruin - photo by Natalie Ortiz
12

Swarm Economy – Zacqary Adam Green

Swarm Economy – Zacqary Adam Green

Border Patrol In Montana
23

Activism – Travis McCrea

Activism – Travis McCrea

Spices - Marrakech 09 Souks
58

Swarm Economy

Swarm Economy

Screen Shot 2013-06-27 at 7.23.12 PM
33

Copyright Monopoly – Travis McCrea

Copyright Monopoly – Travis McCrea

An Ouya console and controller
15

Infopolicy – Zacqary Adam Green

Infopolicy – Zacqary Adam Green

Smári McCarthy
35

Privacy – Christian Engström

Privacy – Christian Engström

1984-ish poster from London's Public Transport
8

Privacy – Loz Kaye

Privacy – Loz Kaye

Man slamming his head on a desk in frustration - CC photo by Flickr user mbshane
36

Privacy – Zacqary Adam Green

Privacy – Zacqary Adam Green

Graffiti of a man swinging a sledgehammer. CC photo by Flickr user 1llustr4t0r.com
48

Copyright Monopoly – Zacqary Adam Green

Copyright Monopoly – Zacqary Adam Green

Bitcoin concept by cybrbeast
54

Swarm Economy

Swarm Economy

Dandelion seed
15

Freedom of Speech – Christian Engström

Freedom of Speech – Christian Engström

This publication is protected under the Constitution of the Kingdom of Sweden. Any problem you have with this publication remains exclusively yours. Accountable publisher: Rick Falkvinge.
All text on this site is Public Domain / CC0 unless specifically noted and credited otherwise. Copy, remix, and inspire. (Troll policy.)
Log in | Original theme design by Gabfire themes (heavily modified)