You all remember Dembski's recent faux pas — he was caught stealing a science video from Harvard/XVIVO for use in his Intelligent Design creationism lectures. Dembski has issued one of his patented not-pologies. He now declares that all of the allegations against him are false, but he now promises to no longer use the video. You see, he really didn't steal it. Here's his excuse.
The video was so good that I wanted to use it in some of my public presentations, but when I tried to purchase a DVD of it (I sent several emails to relevant parties), I was informed it wasn't ready.
Translation: He wanted to use the really good video, but the owners said "no", so he had to use it without their permission. Yeah, that's the ticket. That's not stealing. That's appropriating-without-the-owner's-permission, a whole different thing.
For a kinder, gentler summary, see Tyler DiPietro.
Keep an eye on ERV, I'm sure she'll have more to say later.
As expected, ERV speaks.
- Log in to post comments
There's also some question as to whether the picture Dembski used in that post is legitimate. . . stay tuned.
So not only has Dembski broken the commandment about not steal, he's bearing false witness as well. Ten bucks says he can slip some neighbor's wife coveting into this as well.
This is all getting very funny very quickly. It's like live Monty Python, made better by the fact that these guys aren't trying to be funny.
Can we skip the inaccurate "steal" substitution for "infringe"? When intellectual property rights go the way of the dodo, it will just make everything easier if we have kept the associated language clean and clear. What is meant in this case is "infringe". You can't "steal" information. Not even under current law.
Dembski has the comments turned off on his sniveling load of lameness excuse at the mother of sniveling loads of lameness, the Discovery Institute. I still what to know what they have ever discovered besides how to relieve millionaire software engineers and real estate moguls of their cash.
Yeah, I can't believe that Dembski is such a pussy as to turn off the comments at UD, especially since the comments are so heavily regulated anyway. If he can't take the flack he would get from his sycophantic stooges, he is really feeling guilty.
He didn't steal "information", he stole a presentation of information: someone else's camera work if nothing else.
"The video was so good that I wanted to use it in some of my public presentations, but when I tried to purchase a DVD of it (I sent several emails to relevant parties), I was informed it wasn't ready."
Because REALLY, that's how copyright works. When you want to exhibit the work of other people, you just need to be able to get your hands on a video source.
It's kind of like how scientific and scholarly reference works in the world of academia. You're free to quote and reference the work of other people for comment and criticism. And I've found that your professors really love it when you include it in your work without attribution.
Having bought the DVD would not have given Dembski the needed Copyrights to republish the video, or to modify the video and republish it.
No more than I can buy Dembski's book, scan it, modify the paragraph I don't like, and then sell or give away new prints of the book so modified.
ERV is A-OK.
As much as I'd like to see the present societal attitude that a personal attitude of "NO! IT'S MY TOY! YOU CAN'T PLAY WITH IT!!!!!111 ...maybe if you pay me... ...a lot..." with regard to intellectual property is "normal" or defensible buried upside-down with a stake through its chest, I don't expect we'll ever get to the point where selling someone else's work without permission (or otherwise using it in a way that directly or nearly-directly creates a profit for the user), or using it without attribution, is acceptable, thus Dembski's behavior here still isn't justified.
Voting Present wrote:
As an unapologetic infringer of computer information I appreciate that distinction.
'Cause - 'cause - 'cause I remember when a we used to sit
In a cement yard in Harvard,
Oba - obaserving the 'ypocrites - yeah! -
Mingle with the good people we meet, yeah!
Good dvds we have, oh, good dvds we have lost
Along the way, yeah!
In this great future, you can't forget your past;
So dry your tears, I seh. Yeah!
No video, no cry;
No video, no cry. Eh, yeah!
A little Dembski', don't shed no tears:
No video, no cry. Eh!
Azkyroth wrote:
It's "justified" in the same way that anything the law can't easily punish you for is justified. Seriously, who here hasn't grabbed a "free" song off the net? His defense is like everyone else who has done something similar: "Yea, I liked, I used it, and if you gotta problem with that, sue me." And you know they won't.
Isn't it also the case that you are typically not allowed to use such material as part of a profit making venture -- i.e. using it as part of his speaking engagements?
In that case, it doesn't matter how he used it, the only point was that he did.
Isn't it also the case that you are typically not allowed to use such material as part of a profit making venture -- i.e. using it as part of his speaking engagements?
In that case, it doesn't matter how he used it, the only point was that he did.
He didn't steal "information", he stole a presentation of information: someone else's camera work if nothing else.
Kind of like: this is not a ID pipe-dream, this is a presentation of an ID pipe-dream? :P (Sorry, Magritte)
What's all the fuss about? Just add a few fart sounds, Billy D - it worked for you before.
On that note, it's been almost a year since Billy's fart-a-rama "Judge Jones School of Law." Now we have the upcoming "Expelled." Um, does anyone see a pattern here? ;-)
Copyright is defined by state and federal law.
(and international treaty)
Dembski violated copyright law. In legalese latin, res ipso loquitor. The two videos are exact in content. This is not "Academic Fair Use". See 17 USC 102 and etc for details.
I would think that bigger then the copyright infringement issue would be the plagiarism issue and Billy's continued employment at any educational institution.
I wonder how his barbecue business is doing.
Wow... he sounds like a kid who 'didn't steal another kid's toy because the other kid put it down for a moment and Dembski didn't know it was the other kid's and why is everyone picking on him, waaah waaah?'
Because if you'd bought the DVD Dembski, it would still be plagiarism!
Its creepy.
The "argument" Dembski wants to make is that it just looks too complex to have evolved. At no point does he show, using chemistry or any other principle other than mere subjectivity, that evolution is not a viable explanation for the development of any mechanism.
He uses the argument exactly like those who believe the Pyramids were made by Aliens, and his points are just as factual. Stupid is as stupid believes.
I have no doubt Dembski is perfectly aware of his deception. In order to make an arguement like this, you must be aware of both sides. He knowingly hides the audience from the compelling arguments for evolution.
Its sad, he's definitely borderline criminal here.
You don't see some small difference here?
Ex Dembski: "The video was so good that I wanted to use it in some of my public presentations, but when I tried to purchase a DVD of it (I sent several emails to relevant parties), I was informed it wasn't ready."
All together now . . . The man is a child!
Norman Doering wrote (#14):
So whatever you can get away with is OK by definition? And they say atheists have no morals.
I haven't. Seriously.
Are you kidding? This is the position of the vast majority of humans, at least in America, and especially online. Don't tell me you've never had the nauseating experience of taking issue with the morality/desirability/advisability of another person's decisions and had them reply with "well, I have the right to blah blah blah..."
Of course, the appropriate question would be, "who here hasn't grabbed a song off the internet, stripped off the ID3 tag information, played it during a talk I was paid to give and people were charged to attend, and claimed, as a casual aside, that it was my own work?" I'm willing to bet that's approximately no one.
(Still, I suppose you think downloading an MP3 is "stealing" but charging 18 bucks, of which the vast majority goes to an entity whose function is only quantitatively different from that of a CD burner and an ad banner, for a 40 minute CD isn't?)
I've just spent the night completing an article on Dembski's previous post: the claim that E.O. Wilson is misrepresenting him, and then I have to go and find out that I'm already way behind on his output of outrageously lame excuses.
Only through the mass power of the internet can such a force for fraud be contained.
No copyright problem. Dembski's use was for parody.
It was not presented as a parody. It was not labeled a parody. The original source was not identified. I was under the impression that those conditions had to be met for "parody" to be fair use (if not, they bloody well should).
Because if you'd bought the DVD Dembski, it would still be plagiarism!
Ah, yes. But you don't get to ask who the plagiariser is! ;-)
Dembski is really in his element teaching at bible college.
He continues to be a beacon of stupidity, deceit, and thievery. All, apparently, good Xian values.
Azkyroth, 'twas a joke. Dembski is a walking parody.
Me. I did a couple of hooliganish things on dares when I was a teenager. I came to the realization I was pissing away my name and honor over stealing a $0.25 clip from the hardware store. Felt really stupid and since then I don't steal anything.
I decided if I was ever to be a thief again, that I would only sell my honor and integrity for a LOT of money. My current threshold is $10 million (USD), assuming I'd get away with the money even though I might see jail time.
Since I've not had the opportunity to ever steal anything large enough to sell my integrity, honor and good name it's been a rather dry "what if" mental exercise.
I understand that most people don't think of it that way. That little, petty crimes are "no big deal." But my POV is if you go little, what does that say about how you value yourself? Is your honor, integrity and good name only worth a quarter?
Kind of like the old joke:
Would you have sex with me for a million dollars?
YES!
Would you have sex with me for a dollar?
No! What do you think I am?
A whore, now we're just dickering over the price...
If I'm going to be a whore, it's going to be a damn expensive one...
Azkyroth wrote:
That has been my experience. I know cops who speed, they know when and where they can get away with it. There are streets where the average speed is 80, but the posted speed is 55.
The DI is mostly lawyers -- they've got a pretty good idea what they can get away with.
Even God breaks his own rules he gives people commandments, one of which is "don't kill," then as soon as Moses comes down from the mountain, God orders Moses to kill the golden calf worshipers.
No, no, it's don't murder, by which God means, don't kill people I like. But if someone has the temerity to be born in the womb of the wrong race, well, you had it coming!
"No copyright problem. Dembski's use was for parody."
I agree.
Perhaps instead of stealing or infringing he could claim to have "sampled" Harvard's work. It works for Gangsta Rappers.
I think you mean P-A-R-O-D-Y.
See, parody can be funny. P-A-R-O-D-Y can't. At least, not in the way it was intended.
Bob
So, we've had 4 billion years of cellular evolution (3+ billion as single cells) and we end up with a complex (and beautiful) looking system. I wondered what took so long.
Infringed?
From Jon Voisey's comment on ERV, we learn that to use a modified work as a replacement for the original work is termed piracy.
Are there any punishments for piracy still on the books?
Mind supporting your implicit premise that downloading an MP3 is analogous to stealing a physical object?
Dembski is not a pirate. In fact, I have my doubts that even the ninjas would take him.
To be fair, it wasn't stealing - it was copyright infringement. But perhaps it's a losing battle to try to maintain the idea that "to steal" necessarily involves depriving someone of something.
Copyright infringement is NOT stealing, never has been. It's copyright infringement.
Even the Supreme Court ruled that its not stealing. Guy was arrested with counterfeit Elvis discs. Was charged with transporting stolen materials across state lines. Went to the Supreme Court, they ruled that it was not stealing, and thus they were not stolen materials. I think he even got his discs back.
Probably got sued after that by the owners of the copyright... which is what's supposed to happen.
Viewing non-commercial copyright infringement as akin to stealing is actually a very new point of view - would have seemed alien to people not all that long ago.
The public relations campaign of certain corporations has had an effect.
*gives Joshua a tough-military-commander-style backhand and pull-yourself-together speech*
Although, I'd go so far as to say that plagiarism, from a moral perspective, is considerably less unlike stealing than most other things that fall under the category of "copyright infringement."
For those who think Dembski was indulging in parody: who exactly is he making a parody of ? Harvard? No mention of Harvard in the video or the voice-over. God? Is Dembski parodying the Designer he purports to be attempting to prove?
Seems rather unlikely.
As for the weird "intellectual property" debaters:
I refer you to 17 USC 101, 102 and etc. The law does not make exceptions for "I didn't want to pay the record company money." You don't have to like it. If you don't want your own works protected you can issue them under any of the currently used forms of "free use license" such as GNU or
Creative Commons License.
[Clears throat.]
Fucking criminal.
[Okay, folks, move on. Nothing to see here.]
It is incumbent upon the law to conform to ethics. It is not incumbent upon ethics to conform to the law. I know some preadolescent children who understand this concept. The fact that you apparently do not should give you pause.
And for the record, my own works will be treated as I believe all works should be (even if, despite reasonable efforts, the following fails to become the legal standard within my lifetime): physical copies will be subject to theft laws like any other physical object; distribution in electronic format without charge will be considered free advertising except, perhaps, in the most blatant and obnoxious cases (sites that make a point of very prominently posting text contain spoilers come to mind); failure to properly attribute will result in legal action; and flat-out plagiarism and/or use for monetary gain without prior permission will result in rolling heads.
"Do whatever you can get away with" is not ethics. It's the opposite of ethics.
You may not like record companies -- I don't like them much myself -- but I don't see how that justifies screwing artists out of the right to control their own work.
I don't recall citing "do what you can get away with" as my reasoning. I do recall mentioning something about "free advertising" and asking someone to justify the assumption that copying digital information is analogous to real theft.
You don't see how following the golden rule is justified (see #47)? Well, if you say so...
You seemed to be defending that position in comment #25.
On the contrary, I was using it as an excuse to vent about tangential annoyances with a similar line of reasoning behind them. Perhaps I should have been clearer.
#38, Johnnie Canuck:
"From Jon Voisey's comment on ERV, we learn that to use a modified work as a replacement for the original work is termed piracy.
Are there any punishments for piracy still on the books?"
IDiots; doing their share to stop global warming!
Aaaargh!
What right would that be, then? Copyright isn't a right at all, it's a privilege. It's society's way of telling artists that we like them, we like what they do, and we'd like them to keep doing it. It's there to give them a fair shot of making a profit on their work. 'Controlling' their work doesn't come into it.
As an aside, the constitutional provision specifically permitting Congress to establish patents and copyrights (the constitution does not, in itself, establish them, though this lie is told) specifically references encouraging innovation and industriousness in various fields, and makes no mention of "rights of authors"; I have read, though I don't have a source, that this particular argument was considered and rejected in the debates surrounding the drafting of the U.S. constitution.
What you probably won't see on PBS(I could hope I am wrong).
Not about Dumbski, but here are other good videos for those of you who understand French or German. Their cultural channel ARTE(I don't know if it is available in U.S. or Canada)recently broadcast two interesting programs and will rebroadcast them.
http://www.arte.tv/fr/histoire-societe/masturbation/masturbation/174127…
The first one is about the history of masturbation "playful, instructive, joyful."
The second is about the physiology and historical understanding of the clitoris, "all that you have ever wanted to know about this misunderstood organ, the symbol of feminine pleasure".
You apparently can also get it on video-on-demand in English.
http://www.artevod.com/programDetails.do?emissionId=1296
There is a short video clip there that is probably already too risqué for the American market.
Indeed, that rather proves the point. Congress doesn't get to choose whether or not to grant people rights.
For that matter, rights tend not to come with expiry dates, either.
For those with the charming, albeit, naive idea that the government doesn't get to choose whether or not to grant you rights, try an experiment:
Decide you have the right to deface someone's property. (Actually, the specific "right" doesn't matter. Just something that's currently illegal). Do it in front of of a cop. When they tell you to stop, tell them their silly government-created authority has no meaning to you, because you have the "right" to do whatever it is you're doing.
Tell us how well that works.
For the inevitable comparison to Martin Luther King: Note that it is called "Letter from a Birmingham Jail", not "Letter from my mom's basement because the world sucks really, really bad". King felt that what he was doing was important enough to go to jail over. I don't see too many "DEFENDERS OF FREE INFORMATION" willing to go to jail, or even fight RIAA lawsuits. (Look at how many are settled as opposed to being fought).
As it turns out, the government indeed *does* get to choose whether or not to grant you rights. If you dislike this, you are free to attempt to change either the law, or the government, but you're going to spend a little time in front of a judge.
...do you have even a third grader's understanding what the concept of "a right" is intended to entail?
So, was that just pointless sophistic wankery, or did you really not understand the point I was making? I thought I'd made it pretty clear, but just in case:
1) The US constitution defines what the US government is permitted to do.
2) The US constitution forbids the US government from infringing upon the rights of the people.
3) The US consitution permits the US government to establish copyright law or not, as it chooses.
4) Ergo copyright is not a right as far as the US constitution is concerned.
That the US government has an annoying tendency to do that which it is forbidden to do has precisely fuck-all to do with anything.
Unlike some kinds of American English, Latin has more than one unstressed vowel. Res ipsa loquitur -- the thing/affair itself speaks.
That was a joke. Dembski has ended up making a parody of himself, as usual.
I find the arguments that artists shouldn't have copyright because they didn't always have copyright to be suspect.
In the past we may not have recognized any right for only the author of something to control it, but I think you'll find that most of modern society agrees that this is, in fact, a good idea.
Now, I don't like record companies, I feel that they do grossly overcharge for inferior products. I applaud groups such as Barenaked Ladies or TMBG for trying to move away from that, and I applaud online stores that let you buy individual songs for a dollar.
This does not, however, means that I feel that anyone has any right to copy someone else's work, without permission, and then distribute it, thus depriving the people who created it of profit.
I mean, you don't see anyone seriously advocating, say, selling consumer electronics in the same model. No one is going to argue that it's perfectly fine to buy an iPod, then reverse-engineer it, make your own copies, and then give them away for free. That, quite clearly, denies Apple profit for something that they put a lot of time and money into developing.
On that note: I also support the open-source movement, but not so much the free-software one. I see nothing wrong with a consumer being able to alter any product they buy for their own use (provided that doing so doesn't endanger others), but I disagree that they should then have the ability to give away this altered product and, thus, deprive the creators of money that they have earned.
If nothing else, allowing free redistribution makes it incredibly unlikely that the company that made the original will ever make another product. Doing so now requires time and money (less money = much more time), as soon as you get rid of the money then there's no incentive for people to do this as a job, so production slows down drastically.
You don't have to be much of a photoshopper to realize that the screen capture Mr.D is posting at UCD is taken from a computer screen. The camera is clearly visible over "Scientific" word, and on the upper right corner you can see few fingers holding it.
I can produce the modified image later, but I am sure there are lots of people that can do some CSI-work better than me. Explore.
Support for the implicit assumptions that being able to copy someone else's work will mean that A) a significant number of people will never pay for it later, B) the losses from this number are greater than the expansion of the customer base that comes with the free advertising that copying of information provides, and C) that this holds true even when media companies do not go to superhuman lengths to cultivate a public image as the sort of entities a reasonable, moral person would rather not give their money to?
(I've repeatedly read that CD sales spiked when Napster was first developed...then tanked once legal action against filesharing became widely publicized. Does anyone have a source on hand for that?)
Was anyone actually making that argument?
Well, no. I think most people will agree that copyright is a good idea, but I'm not sure how much agreement you'll get that it's an actual right, as opposed to a privilege.
If copyright is a right, then why are internet downloads a violation of that right, but tape decks, VCRs and DVD recorders aren't? If an author decides to write a novel, encrypt it, then publish only the encrypted version, is any attempt to decrypt it a violation of the author's rights?
When Apple start giving away free IPods to anyone sitting in front of a TV screen at a particular time, someone had better let me know.
Hang on, let me get this straight. Demski says:
He has seen the original. He knows what the original looks like, and that the original has an opening credit and no voice-over. Yet he defends his actions by admitting that he knowingly used an illegal derivative work:
So not only is it an infringing use of a copyrighted material for public display, but it's actually an infringing use of an infringing derivative work for public display.
Could someone give Demski a new shovel; I think he wants to keep digging his hole...
specifically references encouraging innovation and industriousness in various fields, and makes no mention of "rights of authors";
Doesn't mention the DMCA, either. The international treaty in question is the WPPT, and the DMCA was rammed up your (USian) arse supposedly to comply with the WPPT. To comply with the WPPT, US law will have to include author's rights eventually, despite the fact that those are the last thing the copyright industry wants.
Harvard should have lured Dembski to Canada to give a presentation, then they could have smacked him with author's rights infringment.
Azkyroth might fond it instructive to reread the constitutional provision he claims to be referring to. Here, I'll quote it for him (emphasis mine):
Res ipsa loquitur.
Copyright is a legal right, not a civil right. In general, civil rights can only be lost through due process (ie, in court), whereas legal rights are established through law and can be lost by legal edict (as well as due process).
Oops.
fond=find
The narration during the lifted clip was not Dembski, right? If that was the best the DI could do I am unimpressed. If that's the best Dembski and a tape recorder could do I am still unimpressed. The ribosome bind to "endoplasmic reticulum or the Golgi body"? He does know those are different compartments, I hope, and that proteins are synthesized on the ER (and glycosylated in the ER lumen), and THEN transported to the Golgi apparatus for sorting and some post-translational modification, right?
Or how about when the leukocyte flattens and slithers through the endothelium and its "actin is dissolved". Really? That's funny, because I have never seen a cell that can migrate without polymerization of actin!
Not to mention the copious "ums" and "ahs". I could do a better narration than that, with less umming and ahhing and fewer facutal errors, ex tempore.
Sad, sad, sad.
What a charlatan.
I guess the cell is sooooooo complex not even the scab narrator can get it right.
Hey, did anyone else notice how careful Dembski was to note that he personally didn't remove the copyright notice or add the voice over. Of course, he doesn't say anything about whether he knows who did (and of course he does, because it was the DI. In fact, it's likely that he was involved, though he may not have done the actual computer work). He's very careful to use the passive voice: "The version I used took the original soundtrack, which simply had music, and added a voice". Notice there is no subject performing any of these actions.
He is also very vague about where he got it. He says he found it on the internet and downloaded it, but he doesn't say where he found it or downloaded it from, because of course he found it on an intelligent design website, and he was probably provided the link by one of his associates.
It all reminds me of a time in 5th grade when I got in trouble for prank calling a fellow student. I swore up and down that by no means did I prank call anyone. Of course I neglected to mention that my brother did it at my behest. The principal bought it. Of course this is typical 5th grade stuff, and something for which I am now ashamed.
Lying by omission: Dembski is a stellar Christian, isn't he? Well, we at least know he has the ethics of a 5th grader.
BTW, I'm also posting this at ERV.
Damn, messed up the italics tags. I meant to close the second one after the "I" and before the "prank call."
:(
Bert Chadick: Sampling is highly regulated these days, and GETTING sampled is a non-insignificant source of income for oft-sampled artists. Buy a hip hop record that uses samples, or check the sleeve of one in the store.
I was going to respond to the copyright infringement isn't theft nonsense in the comments here, but my response ran a little long (~1200 words) so I moved it over to my own blog. Feel free to beat me up over it.
http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2007/11/copyright_infringement_theft_o.php
Isn't this exactly the sort of behaviour people like Dembski believe occurs due to the acceptance of evolution and scientific materialism?
For David Marjanović, OM (in 61)
You corrected my use of Latin, and I stand corrected.
At least we both agree that Dembski is a joke.
Martin M wrote: " 'Controlling' their work doesn't come into it."
I believe it does in Europe and other countries, where there is also a moral copyright or something to that effect.
That more than likely has everything to do with the prohibitive cost of going to court (over anything) in America, and nothing to do with the ethics and principles of the defendants.
Hey, there's more to a (big) record label than a CD burner and an ad banner. There's paying off radio stations to play your crappy bands' crappy songs, and tricking starry-eyed aspiring artists into byzantine and long-termed contracts that pay them shit-stains on the dollar and take away any control over their 'music'.
And the blow. Don't you ever fucking forget the blow.
And I find that you imagine that **artists** have copyright, instead of corporations, which can mandate that the artist not be allowed to do/release anything without ***their*** permission, disturbing. Well, except for the independents, who don't have masses of lawyers running around creating things like the DMCA. Mind you there have always been people that think like you do, from the start. Back when slavery existed they argued that it was *law* that slavery was legal, therefor not *ethical* to help free anyone, or try to change it. And that is only one example of where the *law* has to conform to the ethics of those writing the laws, but where ethics themselves not only are not required to follow the law, but ***must not***.
All of which is quite pointless in this argument, since Dembski didn't just copy the video for his own use, he did so with the express intent of representing the content as something *other* than what it originally contained, and did it for money. By the same token, ethically, there is now reason why someone couldn't opt to rent a theater with their own money, show a movie to 100 people, and not be required to do anything other than keep the credits intact, though trying to do that would (since the DMCA) have stupid hounds down your throat, the same way that some people have gotten sued for playing their own CDs in a restaurant, on the idiot assumption it constituted a "performance". Technically, just showing a lot of people a movie, as long as you are not charging them directly or indirectly for it, shouldn't be any different than showing it to 100 people at a family reunion. Its all about if you intend to profit from it. Dumbski just takes it one step further and opts to misrepresent the original intent **along with** using it to make money.
As to things like music.. I agree with those that declare the industry as thieves themselves. I still buy everything that isn't so obscure I can't find it easily, but I don't agree with the idea that some corporation *owns* the content forever, the artist has no rights to it at all, and that probably 10 cents of the $20 I pay for a CD goes not to the creator of the work, but a bunch of pencil pushing half wits that try to justify it on the claim that they provide advertising, etc. to the artist. What about the ones that don't tour, no longer perform, haven't produced recent new works, and/or don't sell much any more? Why the $@#$@#$ are they selling at $20 a pop, when the companies whole entire usefulness to them is nothing but making the CDs and shipping them (neither of which **they** do themselves, but contract someone else to do for them)? No other reason than that dropping the price to $10 would also drop the amount the artist got per CD to 5 cents instead, since you know damn well they are not going to pay them the same pittance, while only taking the money out of their own wallets.
Its bloody stupid, and the essence of failing ethics to pull that BS. Why should my ethics be *required* to bend, twist and/or turn into a pretzel to conform to *their* unethical actions? Just wondering...
I am insisting a little bit, but here is part of what you may not see on PBS regarding the clitoris. Guys, you would do well to pay attention.
http://www.clitoris-film.com/extraits.html
A more clear picture for you.
http://www.arte.tv/static/c1/040116_sexedesfemmes/clitoris.pdf
I believe it does in Europe and other countries, where there is also a moral copyright or something to that effect.
In Canada the author retains moral rights to attribution and reputation. These rights *cannot* be sold.
Now you know why the copyright industry is so deathly afraid fo them.
It may actually expand the user base and the number of people who buy the product, but I find that unlikely, and without any studies that show which way it would end up going, I think we have to assume that record companies actually know which method makes them the most money.
In addition, if people are going to end up buying the product in the end, why would you pirate it first? Pretty much every company provides demos of it's products, which serve exactly the same purpose you claim we need piracy for.
In addition, they made the product, why on earth shouldn't they have the right to decide how it's distributed?
I may as well note that I see nothing wrong with making copies of something for personal use, provided that you own the original or the original was made available for free. (So, creating a copy of a piece of software/DVD/Book that you own is perfectly fine. As is recording something off of TV.)
So don't use their product.
It's really that simple.
If you don't want to pay what is being charged, don't use their product. But don't think that because you don't like the price, you get to take a copy for free. The record company gets to charge whatever they like, and if you don't like that, you don't have to use their product. That's the way the system works. Attempts at silly rationalizations like "they're making too much money!" or "that artist hasn't put anything out in 20 years!" or "the labels just rip off the artists" are just that, rationalizations (the last one is especially laughable -- how much did you give the artist for that MP3 you got off of a P2P site?).
If you want to Fight the Man, and get lower music costs, it's really simple -- don't use the product of the Big Labels. Buy indie music, get music from artists who explicitly offer it for free or pay-what-you-can. But don't pretend you have some sort of moral right to freely use someone else's intellectual work without their permission.
Will you please ban bernarda for porn spamming?
Kevin might fit in well at the Discovery Institute.
The section in which that passage is contained:
As the plain English meaning of the above clearly shows, the constitution grants Congress the power to create copyright and patent laws if they so choose. This makes copyright neutral with respect to constitutional rights, since if it was a right the passing of laws to protect it would be compulsory, not discretionary, and if it was a violation of rights, it would be forbidden.
Omnia dicta fortiora si dicta Latina.
Azkyroth said: "Kevin might fit in well at the Discovery Institute."
Damn, dude, that's cold. Come on, some things should be off limits.
Heh heh!
All that is said is stronger if said... wait... Latine "in Latin" would make sense.
Perhaps, in the interest of clarity, I should rephrase my argument.
Article I, Section 8 of the constitution lists the enumerated powers of congress (that is, things that congress may do, and that, if done, are specifically the job of congress to do). No reasonable reading of this passage would support the interpretation that congress must exercise any of these powers. Among the powers granted to congress in this section is the power"[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". In other words, it grants congress permission to pass laws providing for the sort of provisions we refer to as "patents" and "copyrights", in order to encourage innovation and industriousness in the arts, sciences, engineering, etc. - in other words, for purely practical reasons.
Although many (including the SFWA site I linked to above and, apparently, Mr. Vicklund) would very much like to interpret it in the following fashion, it clearly does not posit, appeal to, or even reference the idea that authors have an "inherent" or "natural" right to control the use of their work (in other words, a "Right" in the same sense as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." In fact, by making the passage of laws protecting copyright a power congress may choose to exercise, rather than a mandatory obligation, it implicitly denies the existence of such a right.
Within that passage, the term "right" clearly refers to what would be better described as a "legal entitlement," but when the passage is quoted out of context (quote-mined, in other words, hence the Discovery Institute reference) it can be made to seem to support the idea of such an inherent right, or to actually establish copyrights in itself, but this is clearly not the intent of the actual constitutional provision; hence, such misleading quotation is dishonest and objectionable.
(As an additional note: though I'm not interested in hashing it out here, I think one could argue that copyright law, as it exists today in the form of restrictive laws passed by politicians in the pocket of parasitic megacorporate middlemen, for the benefit of parasitic megacorporate middlemen, is in many cases detrimental to the stated intent "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts").
hehehehe I know you all are having fun with copyright stuff, but in the midst of all this YouTube/GoogleVideo/Mysterious-Dembski-Internet fun, lets not forget why baby Jesus invented YouTube in the first place.
Indeed, let's not.
I'm at work, sadly. :( Synopsis?
As the plain English meaning of the above clearly shows
The plain English doesn't say that any such right can be sold.
An inalienable right can't be sold. Yes?
So copyright is a priviledge, not strictly a right. Which your constitution grants to authors. Doesn't say anything about rights holders who aren't authors, either.
Heehee.
Copyright is a legal entitlement which the constitution grants congress permission to grant to authors. There's a difference here, despite the efforts of certain parties to obfuscate the issue.
Your attempts to quotemine me are quite clumsy, Azkyroth. Please read my final paragraph:
My "legal right" is clearly equivalent to your "legal entitlement" - and my "civil right" is the same as your "inherent right." In fact, I only used "civil" because I was blanking on the term "inherent." Not all rights have to be inherent rights - if it were, the "inherent" would be redundant.
Quote-mining - check.
Refusing to admit error - check.
Misappropriation of definition - check.
So how big a check does the Discovery Institute cut you?
I note that you still have failed to engage my point that the passage you quoted, read in context, does not say what reasonable people could easily get in a heated argument over whether you "explicitly say" or "strongly imply" that it says.
Project much?
(BTW, is Mike Dunford really as much of a knee-jerk reactionary as his commentary makes him seem, or have my multiple instances of walking in on him borrowing the tone and argument style of people who think "This is the United States. We speak English here. If you don't like it, then leave." is an airtight position simply been on bad days?)
(I suppose, now that I have a chance to think it over, my comment at #96 was uncalled for. I am, frankly and, I think, quite reasonably, sick and tired of being told I'm a Bad Person for advocating that all creative works be treated the way I would want my own to be, but descending to that kind of sniping doesn't help things, so I offer what retraction I can.)
My final paragraph clearly defined that a legal right was something that law could both grant and take away - thus, I don't agree with the statement "if it was a right the passing of laws to protect it would be compulsory, not discretionary." Instead of disagreeing with my position, you quote-mined me to make it seem as if I was trying to hide the fact that it was a power rather than an obligation - all while falsely accusing me of quote-mining. My definition of legal right stands whether or not the power is compulsory.
As I stated above, I made quite clear I was differentiating between different types of rights and how they are constructed, including the fact that legal rights are controlled by legal edict. Not only that, but I stated which type of right was being enumerated in that clause of the Constitution.
Frankly put, I completely disagree with your definition in this matter and resent your attempts to set up a straw man of my arguments. Your definition of what is and isn't a right is extremely narrow, non-standard, and disagrees with the use of the term in the constitution.
That's an interesting distinction; thanks for pointing it out. However, I think it's pretty clear from context that those of us making arguments based on rights were referring to civil rights. If legal rights can be lost, then they are a privilege. This doesn't actually alter the arguments, just the words we use.
Your 2) is wrong. It should be:
2) The US consitution forbids the US government from infringing upon the rights retained by the people. (See the 9th Amendment)
This means that 4) is wrong as well. Here's the correction:
4) Ergo copyright is not a right retained by the people as far as the US constitution is concerned.
A right granted by the government as it sees fit is a legal right.
Many read this passage as granting Congress the power to create copyright protection for authors and inventors. To me this passage recognizes that authors have a right to their creative works, but, congress is allowed to secure (protect) those rights for only a limited time. That protection is only for a limited time is equally important to the progress of the arts and sciences as the initial protection.
As for the whole argument of "legal rights" vs "inherent rights", stop redefining words in unconventional ways. What you call a "legal right", ie one granted by the government to the people is simply a "privilege". "Rights" are inferent, governement can either protect those rights or not, it does not grant. This is the key distinction that made the US break from a monarchy, where all rights reside in the monarch and he can choose to dispense privileges at will. The DOI and the USC turned that around and declared that rights are inherent to human existence and governments are formed to protect those rights (or not, as the people choose).
"As for the whole argument of "legal rights" vs "inherent rights", stop redefining words in unconventional ways. What you call a "legal right", ie one granted by the government to the people is simply a "privilege". "Rights" are inferent, governement can either protect those rights or not, it does not grant. This is the key distinction that made the US break from a monarchy, where all rights reside in the monarch and he can choose to dispense privileges at will. The DOI and the USC turned that around and declared that rights are inherent to human existence and governments are formed to protect those rights (or not, as the people choose)."
Of course in many respects the DOI and USC have been overtaken by events. The UK would now seem to offer greater legal protections in a number of respects, especially if you happen to be gay.
Unlike some kinds of American English, Latin has more than one unstressed vowel. Res ipsa loquitur -- the thing/affair itself speaks.
That was a joke. Dembski has ended up making a parody of himself, as usual.
Heh heh!
All that is said is stronger if said... wait... Latine "in Latin" would make sense.