Here’s a new concept:  be terse.  No one has time to read a lengthy diatribe.

Casper, I honestly don’t think that a terse post such as “People, look out! Don’t let socialism destroy the world!” would be substantially more convincing.

There are things that sell without copyright. Nothing is lost.

Older works were created by people who had charisma and energy. Labels’ managers also were bright personalities. And today’s labels are run by gangs of accountants and lawyers who are just nobodys as a personality.

The article is by Dmitry Silnitsky and is called “Big Music Beat-to-Bit”.

Jora, thanks for the tip. I really enjoyed reading Dmitry’s article. I must admit that it added another layer to my vision of the big picture.

I agree with most of the things he wrote, but want to make a couple of points here.

I do not believe that the demise of the music industry (and I do agree that the vast majority of today’s music is complete garbage) stems from the profit motive or from copyright laws. As the famous quote by the famous Russian poet, Pushkin, goes: “Inspiration is not for sale, but a manuscript is”. The profit motive did not erect insurmountable barriers to creation of great works in the past.

This phenomenon has been explained, described and predicted by Ayn Rand in her “Fountainhead” . Here is a tiny quote (Ike in the quote is a talentless wannabe):

“Suppose I didn’t like Ibsen. Suppose I wanted to stop people from seeing his plays. It would do me no good whatever to tell them so. But if I sold them the idea that you’re just as great as Ibsen — pretty soon they wouldn’t be able to tell the difference.”
“Jesus, can you?”
“It’s only an example, Ike.”
“But it would be wonderful!”
“Yes. It would be wonderful. And then it wouldn’t matter what they went to see at all. Then nothing would matter — neither the writers nor those for whom they wrote.”

By “giving a chance” to “underprivileged” talentless artists who are “less fortunate”, compared to those who have talent, and by claiming that their art must be embraced and celebrated, have we not reached the result predicted by Rand?

Profit motive is not the problem. The undeclared attack on meritocracy is. It is not a problem when a recording company tries to make a fortune selling a particular album. It becomes a problem, when the music’s ONLY qualitative characteristic is the number of copies sold.

Wow, that is one heck of a chip you have on your shoulder. From attacking fair use and limited copyrights to attacking public health care and socialism.

It is an interesting hypocrisy you have though. You espouse free and open markets, capitalism and democracy but want state support for artists through giving them total control of their works. If you really did believe in merit, then you’d be supporting the second system you outlined, here the really good artists would do well, based on their merit and the reputation they build. The rest may well squander in poverty. But so what? that is what laissez faire economics is all about. So you want laisez fair economics for health care, but not for artists.

This is an interesting piece you bring to the puzzle.

Darryl, I’m afraid you’re missing the point of my article.

The state does not support artists by recognizing that they have objective rights arising by virtue of the artists having created something that had not existed before. Whether it is a God-given right, a natural right, or a property right, it is NOT a government-granted right.

I do NOT want the state to support artists by redistribution of any form. If the art is valuable enough, it will either sell itself or find a way to someone who would be willing to support it voluntarily, and not through taxation. And if no one is willing to support an artist voluntarily, then I have no problem with the artist squandering in poverty.

By recognizing that copyright owners have a right to what they own, the government is not giving them anything. It simply says: “OK, we recognize you created something that had not existed before, we recognize that you must have rights to what you have created, we recognize that there is no way to enforce these rights other than by recognizing these rights at law, so here you go”.

Copyright by itself does not create any wealth for artists. The content does. If a wannabe artist creates something that no one is willing to use, then even the most extreme form of monopoly will not make him wealthy. This is exactly, what I’m saying in my article, that sometimes it seems that proponents of user rights seem to suggest that copyright should only exist in the works that no one is willing to use, while if the work is worthy of being enjoyed by the “public”, then the public should be able to claim its right to use the work, regardless of what its owner has to say about it.

Copyright laws do not create redistribution of wealth. They do just that - recognize the right of the creator to decide how their works are to be used. And just because the work is great or popular does not mean that anyone has the right to use it in circumvention of conditions that the owner wishes to impose.

“Whether it is a God-given right, a natural right, or a property right, it is NOT a government-granted right.”

That is the crux of the whole argument isn’t it. I contend fully that it is a government granted right no different in substance then the ones they give the phone companies to lay their cables on public lands, and your argument otherwise is not compelling.

You may say that “Nothing that must be produced by another’s labour is a “right””, conversely I can say that nothing which is given away or shared should be kept under the control of the giver. If the artist wants to exercise complete control over these works, then the artist should keep them to himself.

Whatever system we have, that system creates the market in which the artists must operate. They are always free not to create anything. So your comparison to the USSR is a little off the mark I’d say. In fact I’d say quite the opposite, give such complete control over works to a single individual or organization creates the same sort of dictatorship you are complaining about.

I think a true libertarian / meritocracy would want minimal copyright copyright protection so that others are as free as possible to reuse and create new things from past works.

Not that I believe that a pure meritocracy is a good thing. I actually like public health care as well as many other social supports. These are things I consider to be the price of being able to call oneself civilized. Within as strong a social framework that society can afford, I would like to see as much capitalism as possible.

You contend that “nothing which is given away or shared should be kept under the control of the giver”. REALLY? So when my daughter lets a friend use her bike, her friend is free to remove the bell from it or to further share the bike with others, even if my daughter does not want it? And if I loan a book from a library, I am free to make photocopies of it and post them online?

The giver always has a right to control how the receiver is to use what they are given. The giver may waive any form of control, and it’s fine. But if the giver only wants to give on very strict conditions, it is not up to the receiver to challenge those conditions on the premise that they have been given something.

This is what free market is about. People are free to agree to enter into contracts on how they use what others have to offer. Or free to refuse to use things or services offered on conditions that are unacceptable.

I contend that if an author creates a work and agrees to make it available ONLY to those who, in order to obtain access to the work, should post a YouTube video of themselves dancing with a penguin in Antarctica, the author should be free do so and to prevent any other use. If the author is a control-freak, it is HIS RIGHT to fail, if indeed too much control leads to economic failure, as many seem to suggest.

No one has a right to take away his right to fail.

“Public health care and other social supports” would be a good thing if they were funded by aliens. This is not the case. Governments have no money, other than the money they print (causing inflation) or extort from those who create value through progressive taxation.

Your statement that you would like to see as much capitalism as possible within as strong a social framework that society can afford is a contradiction in itself. When you refer to “what society can afford” is a euphemism for how much can the undeserving squeeze from people of achievement before the latter rebel. In these circumstances, a reference to “as much capitalism as possible” is akin to saying that you support wildlife within a framework of a circus. Strong social framework (enforced by the government through forced redistribution of wealth) is an antithesis of capitalism.

There is a difference between giving and loaning. A bike can be loaned. Cultural works only given, as once you have experienced the work it is very difficult to unexperience it. As always, analogies to physical property are faulty.

“Strong social framework (enforced by the government through forced redistribution of wealth) is an antithesis of capitalism.”

To some degree you are right. On the other hand, I don’t want to live in a society where we do not take care of the poorest members. And yes the rich are the ones who can most afford it so the burden of this responsibility falls mostly upon them. I think it is possible that you lived in a totalitarian regime, masquerading as socialist, for so long that you have a very bitter view of socialism.

There is plenty of room for capitalism, but it has to be within a social framework otherwise we cannot call ourselves civilised and we will be no better than the animals.

The funny thing is that your last post clearly and unambiguously proves the point of my article, that all-expanding “user rights” to use someone else’s works are advocated by those who also welcome socialism, or at least some of its policies.

Wow, you make a startling leap from the specific to the general with that one. I just saw a bird out my window which was blue. All birds are blue. NOT!

The funny thing about your last post is that you seem to think “user rights” are expanding. They are not. Since the creation of the Statute of Anne, users rights have been under threat and beaten down at every turn. A good starting point might be a commitment to not take away any MORE user rights.

It is interesting how you spit the words “users rights” and socialism as if both are vile sicknesses. Both are important, and most interestingly, both are important in a FREE society!

I spit the word socialism as if it were a vile sickness, because that is what I strongly believe it is. Socialism (and any other forms of collectivism) is a monstrous idea that someone has a right (moral and legal) to someone else’s life and achievement.

As regards “users rights” - I do not recall these words in the Statute of Anne. Limited exceptions from copyright (or omissions to recognize a certain area of monopoly) do not create a user’s right, no matter what the SCC said in CCH. All they do is create a defence to a claim of copyright infringement. A defence is not an entitlement.

A defence of self-defence does not create a right to kill those who attack you. It merely allows you not to go to jail if you do.

Same with copyright. No one has a RIGHT, or entitlement, to use others’ works, unless they do so in compliance with the conditions that the owner of the work has imposed. But there may be circumstances under which unauthorized use may be excused. And I believe that such circumstances must be extremely limited.

“Socialism (and any other forms of collectivism) is a monstrous idea”

As I said, tainted by a poor system that took the term socialism and twisted it. True socialism, to which modern Europe and Canada have so far been the nearest example I can think of, is the only thing that actually gives us the ability to call ourselves civilized.

I dislike the idea of allowing unbridled capitalism where people are free to exploit and profit from society without incurring any obligation for its well being. To me, that is just another form of dictatorship.

“As regards “users rights” - I do not recall these words in the Statute of Anne.”

So true. That was because the statue was all about ‘giving’ a limited monopoly. As I’m sure you are aware, giving one person a monopoly is the same as denying all others the same power. Every ‘right’ you confer through copyright, by definition, is a limitation on users rights.

“But there may be circumstances under which unauthorized use may be excused. And I believe that such circumstances must be extremely limited. “

Yes, I got the impression from your post that were not a big believer in fair use.

“As I said, tainted by a poor system that took the term socialism and twisted it.”

Hmm, isn’t it funny how all regimes that openly called themselves “socialist” ended up killing millions of people?

“True socialism, to which modern Europe and Canada have so far been the nearest example I can think of, is the only thing that actually gives us the ability to call ourselves civilized.”

Give it time. Look at today’s Greece. If socialist infection is not stopped, it will destroy the whole world. And I do not mean ideologically, I mean physically destroy hundreds of millions of people.

Extortion of wealth from people of achievement is NOT a sign of civilization. It is a sign of slavery and barbarity.

I agree that “giving one person a monopoly is the same as denying all others the same power”. But limiting the monopoly is not the same as positively giving all others the right to claim a piece of the pie.

There ARE NO users rights to limit in the first place. No one has a RIGHT to use something created by another. The copyright monopoly does not limit user rights, because they do not exist.

I do not have a right to food, to clothes, to a haircut, to housing, to a computer, to a car. Neither do I have a right to read a book by someone who does not want me to read it.

“Hmm, isn’t it funny how all regimes that openly called themselves “socialist” ended up killing millions of people?”

So true. It’s also a shame that all regimes that openly called themselves socialists were really dictatorships.

‘Extortion of wealth from people of achievement is NOT a sign of civilization. It is a sign of slavery and barbarity. “

That all depends on your perspective. I’m all for a meritocracy like you, actually probably even MORE than you. You can’t have that in a dictatorship as you are all too keenly aware. But neither can you have that in a pure capitalist system either because, as much as you might otherwise like it too, money does not equal merit. It does however equal opportunity. Unless you tax the rich so that you can offer opportunities to the poor you will never achieve a meritocracy.

“There ARE NO users rights to limit in the first place. No one has a RIGHT to use something created by another. The copyright monopoly does not limit user rights, because they do not exist.”

That is where you and I have key philosophical differences. Without exception, every single exclusive right granted through copyright is a direct limit on user rights.

“Neither do I have a right to read a book by someone who does not want me to read it. “

Again this is where we differ, I think to do. What a crazy totalitarian state we would live in if authors wielded this sort of power. How many other limits should they be able to put on me too. I can read it, but not talk to my friends about it. Should they be able to allow me to read it, but only if I promise not to write a bad review. I somehow think you would support these extremes, but such world would be as bad as the one you left. Talk about slavery.

I think it is time to stop the argument about socialism. Our views are clear enough. As you said, we have key philosophical differences, and let us leave it at that. Read Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead - maybe her works will help you see the world as I see it.

I have just one more question for you. You keep referring to users rights. You even say that “every single exclusive right given through copyright is a direct limit on user rights”.

My question is - where do these user rights come from? If you claim that every exclusive right limits these rights, then it must be assumed that these user rights are absolute otherwise.

So - where do these user rights come from?

“Read Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead - maybe her works will help you see the world as I see it.”

Thanks, I’ll do that. I took a few minutes to read about her on wikipedia. She just seemed so cold. Her ultra-libertarian everyone-for-themselves philosophies, and testifying and helping the McCarthy inquisitions (Pete Seeger was one of my idols specifically because he didn’t participate in that witch hunt.), I’ll be curious to see how she managed to write a novel which is tagged romance.

“My question is - where do these user rights come from? If you claim that every exclusive right limits these rights, then it must be assumed that these user rights are absolute otherwise.”

That is easy. They are basic human rights, partially as illustrated in Article 27 of the UDHR

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

These two subsections within the charter form the two sides of our debate. The problem is that while I will admit that creators have some limited rights as shown in paragraph (2), it would appear that you do not recognize the user rights of paragraph (1).

These two sets of rights obviously conflict often. A reasonable and modest encroachment of one over the other is fine, but in the end (1) has to have precedence over (2).

Rights often conflict and there must be a way of resolving them. This can often be quite tricky depending on the extend of the encroachment. We all have hierarchies of rights, and as I’ve pondered intellectual property issues for a few years now, this is the one that I have developed.

Human rights (dignity, free speech, association, etc…)
Property rights (physical goods and real estate)
Intellectual property (copyright, trademark, etc..)

As you can see, IP rights are third on the list. Previously they only conflicted with human rights. Now with legal protection for DRM they conflict with physical property rights too, and people are starting to notice. Hence the “attack” you perceive towards copyright, which are really just defences of the other two sets of rights that have higher priority.

I hope that clarifies my view of the world a little. I could go on of course, as I’m sure you could. We obviously see much in very very different ways.

As you can probably gather the ranking of human rights and property rights is also the basis for my belief that capitalism can only work inside a social framework.

Otherwise you end up with gross cases of one persons property rights subjugating another persons human rights. It should be the other way around.

I do not believe in human rights, or collective rights, or group rights. I believe in individual rights. There is no such entity as society or collective. These are made up of people each of whom have differing interests and desires.

As regards “participation in the cultural life of the community” and “enjoyment of the arts”, all this means is that the STATE cannot prohibit people from such participation and enjoyment because it deems certain works to be dangerous, not worthy or for any other reason. This does not mean that it gives a positive right to people to use something they did not create.

This right does not materialize in ANYTHING until and unless there is art to be enjoyed. That art is offered by its creators on certain conditions. These conditions must be respected. Because it is impossible to physically control its use once the work has been disclosed, we have copyright.

As regards Ayn Rand, Wikipedia does not do her justice. When I read the page before reading the book, I could not believe that someone seriously recommended her book to me, I thought it was going to be excruciatingly boring.

Then I read the book. It changed my world. Forever.

Wow, that is so sad. During the evening, before my last post, I was out at a scout event. I’m a leader in scouts and we teach kids that they DO have a collective responsibility to others.

One of the problems I have with the States is their notion of individual freedom, without any corresponding concept of social responsibility. Which I guess is the opposite of the Soviet republics which saw only social responsibility without any individual freedom. Frankly I think you need a health balance of both in order to have a healthy society. In this way, the States is really no better than the Soviets were. But then again, if you don’t believe in “such [an] entity as society”, I suppose you might not see it this way.

I disagree with your notion that the rights conferred through the UDHR restrict only state powers. Well… legally perhaps. That would be an artifact of our political system. Morally, they must extend to anyone in a position of power, be they a state, corporation, or individual artist, otherwise it’s not really a ‘right’ is it?

Please don’t get me started on social responsibility, social justice and indoctrination of children on these issues.

The problem with the States is that they are currently being destroyed by numerous groups who are trying to replace individual rights by social responsibility and collective rights. There cannot be a healthy balance between the two, because one negates the other.

If you agree that legally rights conferred through the UDHR only restrict state powers, how else, if not legally, can UDHR restrict anyone else’s powers? These rights are like every other right that is consistent with freedoms, is a NEGATIVE right, and nothing more.

“The problem with the States is that they are currently being destroyed by numerous groups who are trying to replace individual rights by social responsibility and collective rights.”

Funny. What you see as the problem, I see as the last hope to FIX the problem.

“If you agree that legally rights conferred through the UDHR only restrict state powers, how else, if not legally, can UDHR restrict anyone else’s powers?”

It can’t. Hell it can’t even restrict states. However the sentiment of the declairation can logically be extended to any entity which has power over others.

It is interesting. You seem to argue that creators rights are natural rights which require laws such as copyright to enforce. Yet, I argue that users rights are natural rights and you tell me that since the law is not explicit in this way, they aren’t.

LOL. Hope and change. I see

Users rights cannot be natural rights because they require SOMEONE ELSE to GIVE something to you, while natural rights do not require anyone else’s positive action. Natural rights only require all others to ABSTAIN from violating one’s rights.

“Users rights cannot be natural rights because they require SOMEONE ELSE to GIVE something to you, while natural rights do not require anyone else’s positive action. Natural rights only require all others to ABSTAIN from violating one’s rights. “

Funny. The rational is good. But the conclusion is backwards. What do I need you to give me so that I can read the copy of Fountainhead I downloaded? What do I need you to give me so that I can create a parody or a sequel of the same? What do I need you to give me so that I can give a copy of the book to all my friends? Nothing.

Real property and the ability to use it as one wants is a natural right, which I am utilizing to do all of the forgoing. Intellectual property rights require me to abstain from using my real property as I want. IT THERE is the non-natural right.

Do you see my perspective on this? Please do respond because I am eager to better understand how you see it the exact opposite from this.

Easy.

Can you read a book that has not been written?

Here’s one of my favourite quotes from Rand:

“You who are worshippers of the zero-you have never discovered that achieving life is not the equivalent of avoiding death. Joy is not ‘the absence of pain,’ intelligence is not ‘the absence of stupidity,’ light is not ‘the absence of darkness,’ an entity is not ‘the absence of a nonentity.’ Building is not done by abstaining from demolition; centuries of sitting and waiting in such abstinence will not raise one single girder for you to abstain from demolishing-and now you can no longer say to me, the builder: ‘Produce, and feed us in exchange for our not destroying your production.’ I am answering in the name of all your victims: Perish with and in your own void. Existence is not a negation of negatives. Evil, not value, is an absence and a negation, evil is impotent and has no power but that which we let it extort from us. Perish, because we have learned that a zero cannot hold a mortgage over life.”

(BTW, I suggest you start with Atlas Shrugged, not Fountainhead).

Going back to your question.

You can’t read a book that does not exist.

You can only read it because someone has written it.

The author has the right to determine conditions upon which the author will make it available to third parties. These can be ANY conditions whatsoever.

This creates a contract, which copyright laws must enforce.

If you say you have a natural right to read a book, you are saying that the author MUST agree that you read the book, thus depriving the author or the right to determine conditions upon which their own property is to be used. This is not the case.

The fact that you can download unauthorized copies of a book with impunity, does not mean that you have a right and it does not mean that you are not in breach of the contract upon which the author made this work available to the publisher, and the publisher made available to the readers.

To be within the boundaries of the author’s and the publisher’s individual rights, you had to obtain their permission to download and read the book. That’s what they need to give you for you to exercise your “right” to read.

The only difference between tangible property and intangible property is that you can put a physical lock on one and not the other.

And if you disagree, think about your bank account. You don’t think it has real paper money and coins sitting in a box somewhere, right?

So, are you saying that you don’t have a natural property right to your money that you take to the bank? Are you saying that the bank that has tangible property rights to a computer network which holds information about your account, and that is a natural right, and the bank is being required to abstain from using that real property as the bank pleases because your non-natural right (in the form of the money you gave to the bank) just happens to occupy a few bits of ones and zeros on their server?