[MPlayer-users] Re: Rescuing a scratched DVD

[Jeremy Maitin-Shepard]

D Richard Felker III <dalias at aerifal.cx> writes:

> On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 03:31:49PM -0500, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:

>> D Richard Felker III <dalias at aerifal.cx> writes:

[snip]

>> I don't see how it is a ``basic personal liberty'' not to be bound by
>> (most) license agreements.  The DMCA prohibitions are another story.

> Freedom to do anything you want in the privacy of your own home,
> provided it does not harm others, is a basic freedom.

There aren't really any absolute freedoms.  It is well established that
all freedoms must be balanced with other interests.

> So is free speech. Copyright makes it illegal for me to sing a song
> someone else wrote in public. That is a gross infringement of free
> speech.

It is an infringement of `absolute freedom of speech,' but it is well
established that there are legitimate reasons to abridge such freedom.
Specifically, it is well established that there is not freedom of speech
with the intent of directly inciting violence; this is an example of
balancing this freedom with other interests, namely the personal safety
of the populace.  Similarly, copyright legislation is a matter of
balancing freedom of speech with the interest of benefiting society
(i.e. providing public goods), the property rights of the authors of
works.

> Your comment about "license agreements" has nothing to do with
> copyright law since they are a myth manufactured by the software
> industry. They are not valid and there is no legal provision that
> makes you have to agree to any idiotic terms in order to use software.
> If you believe in this backwards law, why not at least learn what the
> crap you believe in says?

> Copyright law was a legitimate compromise between personal freedom and
> the interests of the author when it was first created, for 2 reasons.

While the property rights of the author or innovator are one
consideration, copyright and patent law is primarily designed to benefit
society as a whole by providing an incentive for innovation or for
creating works of art.  After the expiration period of the copyright or
patent (or even before such time), these innovations and works of art
are a public good.  I agree that the current attempts to extend
copyrights indefinitely are not beneficial, nor are excessively long
patent expiration periods; but these issues are largely irrelevant to
the point at hand.  Another purpose of copyrights and patents is to
facilitate a trade relationship (license for some invention or work, in
exchange for money) that benefits both parties involved.

> One, it mainly affected publishing companies, not individuals, since
> individuals had no means to mass-copy written works. Two, even if an
> individual did decide to make copies of a copyrighted work (by hand,
> for instance) the law was _never_ enforced against individuals. Now
> both of those circumstances have changed, and the law is NOT
> ACCEPTABLE.

I am not sure what your point here is.  Since in the past it was not
possible for individuals to mass-copy works, there was no need to
enforce copyrights against individuals, since there was no infringement,
or the at least not large-scale infringement.  Copyright was enforced
against publishers because they were capable of large-scale
infringement.  Now that such large-scale infringement by individuals is
possible, clearly there is a need to enforce copyrights against
individuals in order for the copyrights to be effective.

>> >> > Copyright monopoly is not any more legitimate than other
>> >> > government-granted monopolies as a way to make money. If you can't
>> >> > make a profit without enforcing it against individuals, you should
>> >> > find another business model.
>> >> 
>> >> You can be sure that without patents and copyrights, there would be
>> >> far less innovation generally,
>> 
>> > This is blatently false. In fact the opposite is true.
>> 
>> Look at a popular game like Quake.  Would Quake exist if there were no
>> copyrights? 

> Do I care?

>> Probably not, since it would mean that Id software would
>> have no incentive to make it.  So all those people that enjoy Quake
>> currently would be harmed by the lack of copyrights.

> No "harm" is done to them, since they lost nothing that they
> inherently should have possessed. Believe it or not, people are not
> born with a "right to Quake"! On the other hand, they _are_ born with
> rights to free speech and not to be harassed by the state for the
> monopoly interests of the privileged few.

They are harmed in that they are worse off, at least in this respect
(not benefiting from the mutually beneficial trade relationship), if
there are no copyrights.  You seem to argue that the benefit of the
freedom to copy (or recite) such works freely outweighs the harm caused
by preventing a beneficial trade relationship.  But that work would not
exist in the first place were it not for copyrights, so there really is
no freedom being abridged.

>> You seem be suggesting that all those that currently produce software,
>> pharmaceuticals, etc. would continue to do so as hobbyists, even without
>> being payed. 

> Software, no, many would not. But I think we all know all _software_
> should be free anyway; that's not disputed. Getting rid of the nonfree
> software would be a benefit to humanity.

I believe my example of Quake clearly shows this to be false.  If there
were no nonfree software, there would be no Quake.  If there were no
Quake, then those that are currently able to engage in a mutually
beneficial trade relationship (which does not affect anyone else) of
purchasing a license to Quake with a certain amount of money would not
be able to do so, thus they would be worse off.  Clearly, if they are
worse off, then all of humanity would not benefit.

> As for your argument about pharmaceuticals, it shows a great degree of
> ignorance. Because of these monopoly rights, drug companies have an
> incentive to produce "solutions" that keep the ill dependent on them,
> rather than actually curing diseases. Why would you produce a cure for
> AIDS or cancer if you could instead produce expensive treatments so
> that people have to keep coming back for more??

Do you have any evidence of this happening in practice?

>> You could argue that the
>> government could instead fund all pharmaceutical research, but it seems
>> very likely the government would be rather inefficient at doing so.

> More typical republican blabber. I don't care whether it's governments
> or foundations or corporations producing them. As long as there's a
> need, someone will step up and find a way to make medicine.

This statement is simply not true.  Pharmaceuticals cannot be developed
for free, and if there is no profit, what incentive does someone have
to invest?  A charity or government grant could pay for such
development, but this would likely be less efficient.

>> > There would probably be less, and that's a good thing. Get rid of the
>> > crap that's just made to make a profit and what remains is the real
>> > art.

Ignoring the lack of incentive issue, perhaps you should consider that
sometimes artists or innovators, etc. like to eat, and in order to do
so, they need money.  If they are going to work as artists, or
innovators primarily, they will need to make a profit doing so in order
to obtain money.  
>> 
>> That ``crap'' makes a profit because people like to see it, buy it,
>> etc.  By eliminating copyrights and patents, that ``crap'' would not be
>> produced in the first place, and so those people that decided that
>> they _benefit_ more from seeing or buying the work than from having the
>> $10 or whatever it costs would not be able to obtain that benefit.

> Too bad for them. Maybe they'd find something worthwhile to entertain
> them instead.

I see, so you define worthwhile as ``available at no cost.''
Interesting definition.  Shouldn't people be able to spend their
earnings for their own enjoyment?

>> Thus, those people are harmed by a lack of copyrights also.

> Again, this statement is idiotic.

Losing a previously had benefit is equivalent to being harmed.  I have
stated this several times.

>> >> It is reasonable to argue that the time limits on copyrights and
>> >> patents be reduced, but abolishing copyrights and patents in entirety
>> >> would help no one.
>> 
>> > Also blatently false.
>> 
>> I admit that is possible that someone would _not_ be harmed by lack of
>> copyrights.  Most people do benefit from copyrights though: another good
>> example is books.  If there were no copyrights, there would be far fewer
>> books.  Should we deny to all those that currently buy books the
>> opportunity to benefit from trading the bookstore price of the book for
>> the book?

> It has nothing to do with the opportunity to trade the price. It has
> everything to do with being forced to trade their freedom. If
> copyright only applied to book publishers, no problem. But as soon as
> it keeps me from typing or OCR'ing a book I have and sharing it with a
> friend, that's not acceptable.

If there were no copyrights, the book wouldn't exist in the first place.
Thus, you would still not be able to type it into a computer or use OCR
on it because it would not exist.  There is no freedom being sacrificed.
You seem to think that all of the books that you might want copy would
exist even if there were not copyrights, because they would be written
by dedicated philanthropic hobbyists that live on their inherited wealth
while making no earnings writing books; this is highly improbable.

Are there going to be dedicated philanthropic hobbyist biochemists with
inherited wealth developing your pharmaceuticals also?

Perhaps all of the actors should also be dedicated philanthropic
hobbyists living on inherited wealth.

> BTW, the same thing I said about movies applies to books. Get rid of
> the crap and only leave the stuff that the authors are writing for its
> own sake.

So anything that it is not given away for free is ``crap?''  That
certainly is not intuitive.  You would consider something like rice to
crap because farmers aren't willing to give it to you for free?  We
shouldn't allow any trading because the only stuff being traded is
``crap'' anyway?  And in any case, it is certainly quite paternalistic
to say that no one should benefit from what you consider ``crap.''

> One final guess...you're a techie kid who sees a future for yourself
> profiting from copyright, so you sell out and take advantage of it
> against your own personal interests (all the world's wealth of
> information at your fingertips to freely use and share).

You repeatedly forget that this ``wealth of information'' would not
exist were it not for copyrights and patents.

[snipped possibly self-reflective garbage]

-- 
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard