Digital Copyright an Oxymoron?

[CaptainMorgan]

[Pompous Philosophy Warning!]

There seems to be a general assumption that copyright has been around for a long time and is a good thing. With digital copyright, however, there are several facts that are being clouded through poor analogies.

1) We are now copyrighting numbers.
2) There are innumerable ways to represent each number.
3) Each number can represent many different things.

An interesting thing happens because of this. If you give a copyright to any number, sequence of numbers, or computer file then one of two things must be true. Either there exists an alternate encoding of the number, sequence or file that is not (and cannot be) copyrighted, or all numbers, sequences, and files are copyrighted. If the first is true, there is an encoding of every file that can be copied at will. If the later is true, no one can create any file without infringing on someone else's copyright.

There is no middle ground and neither alternative makes any sense. The entire concept of digital copyright is simply un-true.

The question is, what do we do about it?

Morgan
(Yes, I know it seems crazy.)

[aqlo]

Nice deep thought but it won't fly
It's not the numbers that are copyrighted, it is the tunes lyrics pictures scripts and so on
Any representation of those items
be it a superior rip or marilyn manson crooning the *mash* theme or weird al dancin like a sturgeon
doesn't matter
they all have to pay

geez am I stutterin?

[Jello]

Actually, he is right.

There are many ways to encode a song, wav, mp3, ogg and more could be easily invented. Add to that that any sequence of numbers can be made into any other sequence by XORing it with a string of numbers of equal length (one time pad encryption) and you have the fact that anything encoded on the computer could be ANY and EVERY possible sequence of numbers.

The only way to prevent the above truth from impacting copyright law is to 1) legally require all copyrightable media to only have one form, or a limited number of forms of encoding and 2) forbid all encryption.

It will have to come down to the above for copyright law to survive. It will soon be possible for encryption to be standard for everyone, unbreakable encryption for individuals.

Copyright is finished. It just hasn't sunk in yet.

[aqlo]

Jello if you're arguing that technology is making copyright uneforceable that's quite true.

But it doesn't affect the legal argument. If the thing coming out of the Eagles *and* Linda Ronstadt *and* the grocery store muzak channel *and* some new artist (Desperado) is considered by a court to be the same thing, then it clearly follows that if that same thing is coming out of your mp3 player, in any of a infinite number of possible cuts and codes, is still the same thing.

[CaptainMorgan]

Originally posted by aqlo
Any representation of those items
be it a superior rip or marilyn manson crooning the *mash* theme or weird al dancin like a sturgeon
doesn't matter
they all have to pay


Actually, it's far worse then you make it out to be. The law covers all representations of the work, even those that have not been invented yet. So, if I can write a program that perceives the marilyn manson toon from you sig file, you have to pay.

Title 17 USC
§ 102 · Subject matter of copyright: In general
(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

[CaptainMorgan]

Originally posted by Jello
Copyright is finished. It just hasn't sunk in yet.


Wow... A kindred spirit. Watch my back... :)


Originally posted by aqlo
But it doesn't affect the legal argument. If the thing coming out of the Eagles *and* Linda Ronstadt *and* the grocery store muzak channel *and* some new artist (Desperado) is considered by a court to be the same thing, then it clearly follows that if that same thing is coming out of your mp3 player, in any of a infinite number of possible cuts and codes, is still the same thing.


I agree that a sound that comes out of the computers speakers may be copyrighted, and the person that played the song may have broken analog copyright laws.

None-the-less, it is possible to produce these sounds from files that cannot be copyrighted. (As a matter of fact, using the process that Jello described, it is easy to show that you can produce the Eagles, Linda Ronstadt, muzak, Desperado, and my tax return from the same file.) And if the files cannot be copyrighted, then you cannot sue "posessor "or the "sharer" of these files, only the one who played the files as music.

This can be quite a useful attribute for a P2P system.

[jonnymnemonic]

For the sake of argument, let's all agree that copyrights are dead. What does this then mean? Does it mean that we should eliminate studio musicianship, writing and photography as career choices, and stop teaching such things in school? Film-making could go too, but acting, directing, choreography would all still be useful for live theater.

Still, the industries that support the making of money from works of intellectual property involve a LOT of jobs. The world economy would crumble if we put them all into the unemployment line at once. We should probably do it in stages, like start with all the photographers and photo-media firms and their employees, then wait a few months then get rid of the writers and the magazine and book publishing industries and all their employees. A few months later and we could then probably get rid of all the TV shows and satellite and cable TV and their various employees. Then get rid of radio and musicians and those guys. And finally get rid of the film industry and Hollywood (but leave that til last so we can watch a few movies as we observe the other copyright-reliant industries as they are sent to the unemployment line). Oops, I forgot software companies. Well, okay, leave THEM til last so that we're still able to download movies til the end.

After we get rid of all of those people and industries, then we'll finally be totally free of copyrights! It might be a tad BORING without those industries, but hey, we'd be free! And everything that is ever created would be free too! Not that anyone would actually create anything, but hey, that's not the point.

[cheapprick]

Originally posted by jonnymnemonic

Still, the industries that support the making of money from works of intellectual property involve a LOT of jobs. The world economy would crumble if we put them all into the unemployment line at once.

Who's press releases have you been reading?

I'd be willing to go so far as to accept intellectual property rights for the life of an artist(+18 years to cover the children they partied into creation while killing themselves with drugs and booze). Beyond that let them fall where they may, I could care less if Sonny Bono's or Elvis's widow's starve.

[CaptainMorgan]

Now you've done it, you have gone and started an orthogonal sub-thread.

For the sake of argument, let's say that all of the people in the world are now out of work. Think of all the time they'll have to solve the global warming problem, feed the hungry, and philosophize on how bad the world was when people had to worry about money.

Seriously, are you saying, "I can't see how this would be a good thing, so therefore, it must be false." Or, are you saying, "OK it's true, but Shhhhh we can't tell anyone because bad things might happen."

I got news for you, bad things are happening. It's important that bad things happen for the right reasons. :;) It's also important that any moron be able to give a correct and absolutely firm answer to simple legal questions or we have no law. For instance:

Law:What is the speed limit here? Is wearing life jackets mandatory?
Not Laws: Is deep linking allowed? If I mount a legally purchased CD on my computer, can I share my CD drive? If I buy a DVD can I play it on any player I want.



Sorry to rant.

[MemeticMage]

JonnyM,

If copyright (errr profit) is the sole reason why artists choose to be artists than why are we even calling them artists? An artist chooses to be an artist because she or he loves his art form, not because of the money. A good artist can eek out a living doing his art. Even without copyright. So I say, hell yes! Let the copyright die a very well deserved death and let things move twords where they should be: true artists performing art for mostly intrinsic reasons. The arts would improve a thousand fold as it would be artistic value that drove artists and not the marketing department of their distributor.

Copyright is hardly the cornerstone of the world economy. Why do you think there would be zero money to be made by studio musicians, photographers etc? Are you telling me that without copyright, no one would pay to see a movie, buy a magazine, or even a cd? What commercial art generaly DOES have is high production value and that often makes it worth buying. Granted, the industries would suffer but so long as there was money to be made in them, they would find ways to preservere. People are obviously pretty creative in finding ways to make money- it is almost an art in its self. Commercialism is not the cornerstone of modern civilization. It is an important part but it is not the all-important thing you are making it out to be. In fact, too much commercialism can hurt us and it is hurting us.

What is missing today is what I eluded to to begin with. The world is actually suffering because too many people look at making money as the most important factor in their career choice. Materialism is extremely important and we coulden't do without it, but we don't need to be so oriented around it. People are not doing what they are best at or what they enjoy the most. They are doing what will earn them the most money. That is a tragedy and it means that we are evolving much more slowly as a society and civilization.

Hopefully, the fall of copyright signals a shift away from the materialist paradigm and will be a catlyst of a more intrinsic paradigm, where people actually do what they love, even if it means they don't make as much money.

Sorry for the rant, Capt Morgan, this is a great thread and I'm not tryin to derail it.

[CaptainMorgan]

Originally posted by MemeticMage
An artist chooses to be an artist because she or he loves his art form, not because of the money. A good artist can eek out a living doing his art. Even without copyright.

I agree with your sentament here. But I actually think that there are plenty of business models that artists could use so they don't have to "eek out" a living.

Thomas Kinkade (http://www.thomaskinkade.com/) is a good example. He actually looked at musicians and said, "Those lucky Bastards." What an EASY way to make money. How unfair that painters don't have such a cushy life.

But then he learned from them and changed. What he did different from other painters was he said, "I'm not going to sell my paintings. They are undervalued. I'm going to sell prints of my paintings. I can sell lots of them at lower price points and make more money then selling the original."

This was just like publishing books or music, except nobody was doing it. As a matter of fact there was no, framed art publishing industry at all. (Wow, who would sign him to a contract, produce his work and pay his royalties?). So he just built his own. And got rich. Very rich.

People are obviously pretty creative in finding ways to make money- it is almost an art in its self.

Oops, I quoted too soon...

Sorry for the rant, Capt Morgan, this is a great thread and I'm not tryin to derail it.

No, problem. You make interesting points.

BTW, How come no one jumped on the, "It's important that bad things happen for the right reasons." line? I thought it was pretty good. :;)

[anotherjustme]

For some time now, I've been reading some posts made by this guy...
Although he seems to have an overly enlarged ego, he does make some interesting points.
He also complained about ZP but i'm not sure if he was wright.

"Conspiracy theory" (http://forums.shareaza.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=40921#post40921) <dead link>

[aqlo]

We just schooled him a little sister. We called him mommy and made him write bad checks. He'll be better for the experience.

He starts makin 30 threads about his own aspiration to be Napoleon again we will school him some more.

[tMoD]

Personally, I liked the guy but now you're making me wonder if I got suckered by another raf111. I'm not sure how common raf111 types are at ZP. Maybe I'll get more cynical with time.

I'd better go edit my post so I don't look like a total idiot.

[shawners]

Copywrite should be used for two reasons, Keep idiots from singing REALLy bad the songs that you recorded, and to keep people that pirate the music and movies to the street for profit.
The whole idea of paying royaties for singing a birthday song is absurd! Or Beatles sueing apple for being in to music. Copywriting a FRUIT Is dumb, dumb and dumb. I could encorporate a banana so i can shove it up their ass who ever thought up it.If you sale a cd, infact your saleing your music, they made a purchase and now is a share holder. So if they put it on their p2p system of their choice and share. It's their pie their saleing, and everyone else is getting the copy of the copy. While their are few artist that are bashing the RIAA, not all artist. Keep in mind that if you like their music you should rather buy the cd used and email their websight about it, or to go to their concert where they get more money, while music thats played is good loud, and live!

[anotherjustme]

Originally posted by tMoD
Personally, I liked the guy but now you're making me wonder if I got suckered by another raf111. I'm not sure how common raf111 types are at ZP. Maybe I'll get more cynical with time.

I'd better go edit my post so I don't look like a total idiot.

Well... it's not his personality that I care about, but it's what he is standing for.
He may not be the most friendly creature, but he does say what he has in mind and it does make sense. Unless he's just some kind of scam artist...
Who knows...Anyways... I do read his posts... Maybe I like him only because he's from the same country as I am...
ehhh... who cares...

[aqlo]

For the sake of argument, let's say that all of the people in the world are now out of work. Think of all the time they'll have to solve the global warming problem, feed the hungry, and philosophize on how bad the world was when people had to worry about money.

Seriously, are you saying, "I can't see how this would be a good thing, so therefore, it must be false." Or, are you saying, "OK it's true, but Shhhhh we can't tell anyone because bad things might happen."

I got news for you, bad things are happening.

So anyway, back to the point.

Did we kill the economy? Or was it just a coincidence?

[Lord_of_the_Dense]

Retro-Poll:

What are the people behind The Big Hack?

- Visionaries - they know what they are doing!
- Deluded - they will never make it.
- Lawbreakers - they are breaking the law!
- Anarchists - they are destroying the economy!
- Saviors - they will save us from the RIAA!
- Revolutionaries - they will *change* The Internet.