[Politech logo]

Politech is the oldest Internet resource devoted to politics and technology. Launched in 1994 by Declan McCullagh, the mailing list has chronicled the growing intersection of culture, technology, politics, and law. Since 2000, so has the Politech web site.

Many, many replies to Jim Maule's defense of Prestwood, RIAA



[Wow. This struck a nerve. Because of the sheer volume, it's been a
difficult set of replies to manage. First, I've had about 100 of them,
totaling over half a megabyte, and taking me about 40 minutes to
edit. Second, Eudora decided to eat the formatting, so the punctuation
is pretty chomped. Third, Eudora decided not to let me send out the
final text, so I'm using trusty ol' mutt instead. Previous Politech message
is here: http://www.politechbot.com/p-05056.html --Declan]

---

Date Tue, 9 Sep 2003 014645 -0600
From "Patrick J. Kobly" <patrick@kobly.com>
To Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject Re FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits


On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 120234PM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote
> Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 113631 -0400
> From "James Maule" <maule@law.villanova.edu>
> To <declan@well.com>
> Subject Re FC Reply to Hugh Prestwood and RIAA suing individual P2P users

<SNIP>

> So, If I build a barn-like structure with my own hands, and then build
> a huge model railroad display inside, and then invite the public to
> visit for $10 a visit per person, why should I, after some short period
> of time, let people in for free? Why can I not pass that building and
> display on to my kids when I die, giving them something for which they
> can charge admission? Under current law, the property right (created by
> my physical efforts and the creativity of how I designed the layout and
> its accessories) is eternal. 

The property right is _not_ created by your physical efforts or your
creativity.  The property right here is created by the scarcity of the
land upon which you built your barn-like structure and the scarcity of
the building supplies that you used to build this structure.
Moreover, it is justified by the fact that when someone else uses the
barn-like structure, you are deprived of uses that you could make of
it.  If you could not prevent people from entering the barn, this
would prevent you from removing the model railroad, and keeping
chickens in the barn, for example.

You are dishonestly conflating two different rights here - the real
property ownership interest in the barn, and the intellectual
"property" interest in the model railroad.

What area of law do you concentrate on?  It appears clear that it is
neither real property nor intellectual property...

<SNIP>

> So the underlying premise of the entire argument of the "we share other
> people's property' crowd makes no sense unless it is viewed as a "I want
> it, you have it, I'll find a way to take it." Hmmm.... sounds like
> several national leaders of the 30s in Europe and the Pacific Rim......

Or one nation in North America throughout the latter half of the 20th
century...  Either way, it's irrelevant.  Copyright and "intellectual
property" were created in the United States to promote the arts and
sciences by offering a limited time of statutorily provided monopoly
protection to the creators of a work.  

This is the bargain that was made by creators with society.  The
progress of the arts and sciences requires that works be publicly
accessible and expandable.  Many creators desire protection so they
can be paid for their works.  So a bargain developed.  Creators agreed
to allow their works to lapse into PD at some time in the future, in
exchange for protection of a monopoly on those works during that
limited time period.  If they don't like the time limit, they
can choose not to release their works.  Instead, we are faced by
creators and their middlemen continually arguing for retroactive
extensions of this term so that the consideration offered by the
creators (works lapsing into the PD) is never actually granted to
society.  Society has held its end of the bargain (statutory
protection granting an exclusive right of duplication, distribution
and modification) for an awful long time.  The creators have defaulted.

PK
-- 
Bow down before the one you serve
You're going to get what you deserve
                -NIN

---

To declan@well.com
Subject Re FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits
From "Larry Burton" <larry@dallasbay.net>
Reply-To larry@dallasbay.net
Organization Dallas Bay Networks
 
> From "James Maule" <maule@law.villanova.edu>

> So, If I build a barn-like structure with my own hands, and then build
> a huge model railroad display inside, and then invite the public to
> visit for $10 a visit per person, why should I, after some short period
> of time, let people in for free?

No, but after paying your $10 to visit I become inspired and wish build something just like it should I be prevented? The differences between real and intellectual property are so vast the it prevents analogies between the two.

--- 

From "Brandon Galbraith" <brandon@corruptedtruth.com>
To <declan@well.com>
Cc <maule@law.villanova.edu>
Subject RE Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits
Date Tue, 9 Sep 2003 114419 -0500 
Declan,

Intellectual copyright has a time-limitation, so that after the owner of the
intellectual property has had time to make a profit on his work, the work is
then released into the public domain, for the public good.

Isn't this the same as eminent domain over private property?

>From eminentdomainlaw.net

"Eminent domain" (also called "condemnation") is the power of government
agencies to acquire property for "public use" so long as the government pays
"just compensation." Recognized public uses for which the power of eminent
domain may be used include, among other things, schools, parks, roads,
highways, subways, fire and police stations, public buildings, and the
elimination of blight through redevelopment. A key attribute of eminent
domain is that the government can exercise its power of eminent domain even
if the owner does not wish to sell his or her property."

So if the town where Jim's barn resides in decides that the public good
outweighs his right to charge $10 a person to get in, and they take it, how
is that different that copyrights expiring?

-brandon

 
From "B. Boom" <bb@ii.nl>
To <declan@well.com>
X-Mailer PocoMail 2.64 (1120) - Licensed Version
Date Tue, 9 Sep 2003 185106 +0200
In-Reply-To <6.0.0.22.2.20030909114510.01f48af0@mail.well.com> 

James Maule wrote
>So, If I build a barn-like structure with my own hands, and then
>build
>a huge model railroad display inside, and then invite the public to
>visit for $10 a visit per person, why should I, after some short
>period
>of time, let people in for free? 

So you are also of the opinion that no-one should be allowed to build a 
replica of your railroad? And what if you close yours down?

Nobody is asking the record companies to deal out free records, just 
the right to reproduce them after a while. More so, when they are out 
of print and not being reprinted.

.B Boom




From ???@??? Tue Sep 09 125828 2003

Subject Re FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits
From Steve Stearns <sterno@bigbrother.net>
To declan@well.com


On Tue, 2003-09-09 at 1102, Declan McCullagh wrote

Quoting from James Maule's response

> So, If I build a barn-like structure with my own hands, and then build
> a huge model railroad display inside, and then invite the public to
> visit for $10 a visit per person, why should I, after some short period
> of time, let people in for free? 

It would be nice if he did but there's no expectation.  When you are
talking about physical property, all the contributors to that physical
property have been compensated.  If somebody builds a barn, and a model
railroad, they have to pay for the property, lumber,  trains, and then
they add value by their own contribution of labor.  Thus, when it is all
built, that person is sole owner of the creation. 

With intellectual property, the building blocks of the works are never
paid for directly.  If I was to go into the barn and film it, the owner
of the barn isn't paid for the images I take (except my $10 admission
fee that everybody else paid too).  So I'm getting free material to work
with.  Fair use and the limited terms of copyright insure a property
right where there otherwise would not be one in exchange for a
compensation structure that insures society as whole gets something back
for what is taken for free.

---Steve

Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 130341 -0400
From "James Maule" <maule@law.villanova.edu>
To <brandon@corruptedtruth.com>, <declan@well.com>
Subject RE Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits


It is different in several respects.

First, I am paid for the future profits I would have earned if the
condemnation did not take place. The P2P folks don't want to pay
anything.

Second, there are due process opportunities to contest the taking and
to dispute the amount of the damages. The P2P folks simply do the taking
without notice, hearings, or any other procedural safeguard.

Third, the condemnation of my building is an act of duly elected
government officials, and in many instances, while the condemnation
proceedings are underway, voters have ousted from office the officials
trying to take the property. The P2P folks are "take the law into their
own hands" types ... analogous to someone simply moving me out of the
model railroad barn by use of tanks or some form of terrorism.

I'm not arguing against the expiration of copyright (which is very
different from the in perpetuity nature of other property ownership).
Patents also expire. So do franchies and licenses (though those are
privately created, and need not expire if the contract makes them
perpetual).

What I'm arguing is that so long as the copyright exists, the
copywritten material is the property of the copyright owner. There's a
lot of material "out there" on which there is no copyright (through
expiration or because it is not of copywritable nature), or which the
copyright owner has put into the public domain (explicitly or by
ignoring all infringments). The RIAA liitigation doesn't involve those
items; it involves items which are privately owned and which are easy to
steal because the technology doesn't have the equivalent of the locks,
alarm systems, pit bulls, electric fences, and mine fields that can be
placed around the model railroad barn.



Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 180542 +0100
From ken <bbrow07@students.bbk.ac.uk>

> Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 113631 -0400
> From "James Maule" <maule@law.villanova.edu>
> To <declan@well.com>
> Subject Re FC Reply to Hugh Prestwood and RIAA suing individual P2P 
> users

[...]

> So, If I build a barn-like structure with my own hands, and then build
> a huge model railroad display inside, and then invite the public to
> visit for $10 a visit per person, why should I, after some short period
> of time, let people in for free? 

Not at all. What they are saying is that you should not be allowed 
indefinitely to prevent someone else making a similar model railway.

</x-flowed>


Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 101256 -0700
From Andrew Huntwork <ash@huntwork.net>
User-Agent Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv1.4) Gecko/20030624
X-Accept-Language en-us, en
MIME-Version 1.0
To declan@well.com

<x-flowed>
So the intellectual property regime of this country for its entire 
history is troubling to a law professor?  perhaps he should find another 
line of work.  Remember what Thomas Jefferson said

      "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others 
of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an 
idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it 
to himself, but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the 
possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of 
it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, 
because every other possesses the whole of it.

     "He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself 
without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives 
light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to 
another over the globe, for moral and mutual instruction of man, and 
improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and 
benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, 
expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, 
and like the air in which we breath, move, and have our physical being, 
incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.

     "Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

While Mr. Maule may build a barn-like structure using his own hands 
only, it is the rarest of intellectual works that is entirely new and 
does not build on the ideas of others.  Does every intellectual work 
steal from the creators of the ideas on which it is based?  I cannot 
imagine such a definition of intellectual property being helpful to anyone.



Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 141939 -0300
From jtaylor <jtaylor@hfx.andara.com>
Subject Re Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits
To declan@well.com

----- Original Message -----
From "Declan McCullagh" <declan@well.com>
To <politech@politechbot.com>
Sent September 09, 2003 102 PM
Subject FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits


> Previous Politech message
> "Reply to Hugh Prestwood and RIAA suing individual P2P users"
> http//www.politechbot.com/p-05050.html
>
> ---
>
> Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 113631 -0400
> From "James Maule" <maule@law.villanova.edu>
> To <declan@well.com>
> Subject Re FC Reply to Hugh Prestwood and RIAA suing individual P2P
users
>
> I don't get the gist of Jason's complaint. Actually, I do.... and it is
> troubling.
>

[ a lengthy expansion of his difficulty deleted... ]

You mis-understand.

There is, in terms of copyright and patent, a difference between physical
things, and ideas and their expression(s).  Property rights vested in each
are treated differently.  You are taking an example from one arena and
applying it to the other - a common mistake, but unfortunately one made, it
would seem, on purpose and frequently so by those who would gain from an
expansion of their temporary rights.

We assume that your error is genuine and free from such taint...



Date Tue, 9 Sep 2003 172337 +0000 (UTC)
From "Robert J. Chassell" <bob@rattlesnake.com>
To Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
CC bob@rattlesnake.com


   .... If I build a barn-like structure with my own hands, and then build
   a huge model railroad display inside, and then invite the public to
   visit for $10 a visit per person, why should I, after some short period
   of time, let people in for free? 

Let's ask another question  If your neighbor, using his hands, not
yours, builds a barn-like structure and model railroad display inside,
should he be forbidden to invite the public to visit?

That is what the question is about can one person use police to
prevent others from using their `means of production' to make
competitive works?

Remember, the question is not really about a `rivalrous' property,
such as a barn and land.  (`Rivalrous' is a term used by economists;
it means that your use and mine `rivals' each other; we both cannot
use a barn for different purposes at the same time.)

The question is about how to promote `non-rivalrous' works, the kind
you *cannot* drop on your toe how to promote the design of model
train layouts, not how to build specific model trains.  (The use of
frameworks developed for thinking about `rivalrous' property to think
about `non-rivalrous' works is metaphorical, although often not
recognized as such.)

The U.S. Constitution said that to promote `non-rivalrous' works,

    ... promote the progress of science and the useful arts ...

government enforced regulation could be used, but only `for limited
times'.    (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8)

-- 
    Robert J. Chassell                         Rattlesnake Enterprises
    http//www.rattlesnake.com                  GnuPG Key ID 004B4AC8
    http//www.teak.cc                             bob@rattlesnake.com


Subject RE Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits
Date Tue, 9 Sep 2003 182442 +0100
X-MS-Has-Attach 


Declan,

I worry greatly about a professor of law who doesn't understand the
concept of and differences in "intellectual property" versus physical
property. I'm likewise concerned about a tax lawyer creating simplified
analogies about Constitutional issues.

Copyright, by definition, exists to promote the various arts and reward
the creators a *limited* monopoly on use.

The U.S. Constitution, Section 1, Article 8, Clause 8 reads "[The
Congress shall have Power] To 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".

Disney has made an awful lot of money on items which are in the public
domain, such as Hans Christian Andersen's and Kipling's, and a quick
search will turn up their follies with the Milne estate over their
failure to pay royalties for Pooh. Yet, they want no one to be able to
use that which should also be available to the public in exchange for
the long monopoly which they held. The protections of trademark law
prevent others using Mickey for their own logo.

The original copyright duration was 28 years and could be extended once
for another 28 years. This let most works into the public domain within
a useful period. The excesses of changing that extension first to 47
years and then the period to "life plus 70" has effectively nullified
the public's interest. However, the Constitution clearly states that the
exclusive right is granted only for a limited time "to promote the
progress of science and useful arts". 

There is no progress when none can use the works. Current Copyright
violates the spirit of Article 8, and, I expect, the letter of the law,
as well.

Sincerely,
M W Grossmann
(please block address)




To declan@well.com
Subject Re FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits
References <6.0.0.22.2.20030909114510.01f48af0@mail.well.com>
From Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>
Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 132623 -0400



It seriously concerns me that, of all people, a professor of law would
so flagrantly muddle intellectual property law with physical property
law.  A simple extension of his argument would argue that anyone
running a railroad today should pay license fees to the descendants of
steam engine inventors for things that were invented 200 years ago
(and which have long since passed into engineering basics).  On the
other hand, if someone stole my car for a short joyride, I would very
much like to claim $150,000 in damages!

Michael Poole


Message-ID <Pine.BSI.4.56.0309091250280.26120@tom.iecc.com>
From "John R Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To "Declan McCullagh" <declan@well.com>
Subject Re FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits


> So, If I build a barn-like structure with my own hands, and then build
> a huge model railroad display inside, and then invite the public to
> visit for $10 a visit per person, why should I, after some short period
> of time, let people in for free? Why can I not pass that building and
> display on to my kids when I die, giving them something for which they
> can charge admission?

I have to say that I'm troubled to read a message from a professor of law
who seems unaware of the legal and historical basis of copyright law, or
at least is unwilling to acknowledge that basis.

Despite the (depressingly successful, evidently) attempts of the Disney,
the RIAA, et al. to persuade us otherwise, copyright is not the same as
real property.  If you build a barn and a railroad, your setup is a unique
object, anyone who wanted to build another barn like it would have to put
about as much effort into their copy as you did into your original, and
anyone who wants to see your barn has to physically visit it.

Books and songs are different, in that copying an original is physically
very easy, much easier than creating the original.  For that reason, the
Constitution has specific language creating copyrights, as a specific
offer to authors they get a artificial legal ban against other people
making those easy copies for a while, in return for the material
eventually being available to the public.  Authors don't have to take this
deal.  If you write a book, you can print up copies and lease them out for
$10/week, using contract law to forbid copying, and you and your heirs can
do that forever.  The fact that nearly all authors take advantage of
copyright instead tells us that the copyright deal is a good one for
authors.  It permits much wider distribution while still getting payment
to the author -- readers don't have to physically visit your barn and
negotiate with you to read your book.

Unlike ownership of real property, there's no ancient historical tradition
of ownership of copyright.  Revolutionary France had no copyright at all,
and modern copyright dates only from the Statute of Anne in 1714.  In U.S.
history, copyright has until recent years lasted roughly for the lifespan
of the author, originally 28 years, lengthened to 56 years in the late
1800s.  The recent ballooning of the copyright term has only happened
since corporations, which are potentially eternal, have started to own
copyrights and have lobbied in disingenuous ways to extend protection on a
tiny set of still-valuable works from the 1920s that they own.

The social goal of copyright is stated in the Constitution to be to
encourage authors, but very long copyright terms are an extremely
inefficient way to accomplish that.  Even if I were to write a copyrighted
work that stayed in print for 70 or 90 years, which is pretty unlikely
(how many books written before 1933 have you bought lately compared to
books written within the past decade?), the vast majority of income from
most books comes in the first few decades, particularly when you take into
account that a dollar in 2073 is worth about three cents today.  In the
meantime, the public is denied the access that the copyright deal offered
them for works published in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s.

None of this should come as a surprise to anyone reading this, and
certainly not to anyone familar with U.S. law.  So can we stop the
self-righteous complaints that copyright isn't perpetual, please?

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http//iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.



Subject RE Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits
Date Tue, 9 Sep 2003 132753 -0400
To declan@well.com


The framers of the U. S. Constitution, understanding the importance of
promoting creativity in the arts and science to a free people, vested
Congress with the power to enact copyright and patent laws.  U.S.
Const., art I, section 8, clause 8 provides "To promote the progress of
science and useful arts, by securing for limited time to authors and
inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and
discoveries."  The entertainment industry has continued to push for
legislation that extends the "limited time" for exclusive copyright use,
most recently with the "Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act," signed
into law in 1998.  The Act's constitutionality was challenged and
rejected by a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in an opinion dated
January 15, 2003.  (537 U.S. __ 2003).  That's what Jason was talking
about James.       

Shame on you for speaking out without reviewing your con law notes.

Declan, if you post this, please remove my name and email address since
I am writing in my individual capacity (while using my employer's
facilities).


From "Budd, Tracy" 
To "'declan@well.com'" <declan@well.com>
Subject RE Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits
Date Tue, 9 Sep 2003 134042 -0400 

<Please remove my email address from this>

This analogy makes no sense at all.

>I don't get the gist of Jason's complaint. Actually, I do.... and it is
>troubling.

>So, If I build a barn-like structure with my own hands, and then build
>a huge model railroad display inside, and then invite the public to
>visit for $10 a visit per person, why should I, after some short period
>of time, let people in for free?

If you are going to use this analogy, then the people don't want to be
let in for free. They would like to be able to take a picture of your
setup and build their own at home. 

>Why can I not pass that building and
>display on to my kids when I die, giving them something for which they
>can charge admission? Under current law, the property right (created by
>my physical efforts and the creativity of how I designed the layout and
>its accessories) is eternal. (Sure, I'll pay taxes to repay society for
>the burden my property puts on the environment, for police protection,
>etc..... just as creative artists pay taxes).

Again, using your analogy, someone can legally "copy" your train setup
in their own home. What you want to prevent is anyone from ever
duplicating or making a derivative of your train setup forever. Now you
might say, the model train setup (physical property) is not the same as 
IP, and I would agree. This and similar equivocating physical with real
property is simply propaganda that does not hold up to scrutiny.

Regards,
-Tracy


Date Tue,  9 Sep 2003 124239 -0500
From mdelvecchio@visi.com
To declan@well.com
Cc maule@law.villanova.edu
Subject Re FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits


Ok maybe im missing some critical peice of information, but...

it sounds to me Mr. Maule's argument fails, because he's making an analogy 
between property law and intellectual property law. that fails because unlike 
physical property, IP has a built-in TTL (time to live).

from the beginning IP has been designed to expire because lawmakers knew and 
understood that to create wonderful new IP, we need the ability to draw upon 
previous ideas. 

and yet, due to the depthless coffers of RIAA/MPIAA/Disney, these limitations 
are continuously extended.

so i think what we are seeing is a natural sort of backlash to these continus 
extentions of IP. cause and effect...


matt

--
Matt Del Vecchio




From Vicki Richman <vicric@vicric.com>
To Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject Re FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits


> Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 113631 -0400
> From "James Maule" <maule@law.villanova.edu>
> To <declan@well.com>
> Subject Re FC Reply to Hugh Prestwood and RIAA suing individual P2P users

[Likening copyright to ownership and use of real property,
Professor Maule writes]

> So should my grandchildren get to live off my model railroad creation?

Perhaps the father of modern copyright law, Mark Twain said
in defense of limitation

    I like that extension of copyright life to the author's
    life and fifty years afterward. I think that would
    satisfy any reasonable author, because it would take
    care of his children. Let the grandchildren take care of
    themselves. That would take care of my daughters, and
    after that I am not particular.

http//www.boondocksnet.com/twaintexts/speeches/mts_copyright.html

And that indeed is what happened, although not in a way that
Mark Twain intended. Because she deemed it pornographic,
Twain's daughter Clara Clemens denied scholars copies of
certain of her father's late unpublished work. It was only
in the 1960s, when his work came into the public domain,
that the full body of Twain's writings became known to the
public.

Before the 1960s, some of Twain's work was smuggled out of
Clara's possession and pirated. I still have my bootleg
first edition of "1601," one the bawdiest tales ever
written.

Copyright is a two-edged sword, as Clara Clemens and
Scientology have shown. It can be used to conceal, to
censor, to cut off part of our common culture, as well as to
gain an income.
 
Solidarity,
-- 
Vicki Richman
vicric@vicric.com
http//vicric.com


Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 105613 -0700
Subject Re FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits
From "E. Miller" <subscriptionbox@squishymedia.com>
To <declan@well.com>
Cc <maule@law.villanova.edu>


Howdy,

Just a comment on this comment I thought that this response was extremely
literal.  All output of labor = personal property, all personal property =
total control and ownership in perpetuity.  What a strange world we'd live
in if that were the case.  I hereby claim eternal ownership of the carbon
dioxide I just exhaled.  Keep your filthy lungs away from my CO2.  Your
houseplants too.  Seriously, I mean it.

Well, if we WANT a society in which everything is a commodity, if everything
can be owned and controlled by transient private entities, then we may just
get that.  But that's a wildly nave and absolutist view of our role as
ephemeral participants in collaborative society built on the eternal
exchange and elaboration of ideas, emotions, materiel goods...

Our individual actions influence the shape of society, sometimes for the
worse, but hopefully for the better.  The same goes for production; it is
best for society if the actions of individuals contributes to the well-being
of society as a whole.  Sometimes that's congruent with self-interest
(entrepreneurialism) and sometime it's not (theft).  Sorry, Adam.

So it strikes me as amusing that the poster (from a good law school, at
that) doesn't differentiate between pure self-interest as expressed by the
entrepreneur (selling admission and claiming eternal ownership of profits)
and pure self-interest as expressed by the putative thief ("stealing" by
consuming an experience with zero marginal cost for the producer).

In the US we have somehow developed this odd collective self-delusion that
there isn't a differentiation between self-interest and collective interest.
And that's absurd.  'Cause you know what?  You're going to die someday.
We're all going to die someday.  And a system that assigns complete control
of physical, social, and cultural contributions to society to entities that
will soon be dead and decomposing...now that's asinine.  Like I said, in an
extreme example don't you dare inhale my CO2.

We have to realize that we can't completely own the experiences that
constitute society any more than we can own air.  But what the hell do I
know, I'm just a reformed ex-music major and a creative content producer...

Eric



Date Tue, 9 Sep 2003 135902 -0400
To maule@law.villanova.edu, declan@well.com
From Brent Neal  
Subject Re FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits



>

[Declan - if you post this to Politech, please obscure my email address]

Jim,

Did you perhaps see "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" this summer? 
Or did you ever see Disney's 20,00 Leagues Under the Sea. What about 
Disney's "The Little Mermaid" or "The Hunchback of Notre Dame?" What 
about "Tarzan?" Did you buy those DVDs for your kids? Your grandkids? 
If you did, then you are in principle as guilty as you claim that the 
file sharers are. The only difference is that you've lucked out the 
great writers of the 19th and early 20th century did not have the 
wonderful "protections" that modern artists do.

The fact is that without reasonable limits on copyright terms, NONE 
of those movies would have existed. End of story. The public domain 
is a living, vital source of ideas and material for new creative 
works. You could easily argue that Disney would not be one of the 
world's premier entertainment companies without their repeated use of 
the public domain.  Now, imagine the world without Disney. While I 
cannot deny that the abuse that they've placed on our copyright 
system and the violence that they have done to many literary classics 
has been egregious, Disney has provided a creative outlet for many 
original works as well. To have Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck never 
exist at all due to the interests of selfish creators would be far 
worse. Yet, our current copyright regime guarantees that the 
entertainment companies of the future will never have the same 
resources as the early Disney studios did, simply because the 
copyright regime does not respect the value of the public domain.

Your example of the barn has two major flaws. First,  you assume that 
society as a whole benefits if a creator (or his inheritors) can in 
perpetuity restrict any usage of his work. It is quite clear given my 
previous example that this is not the case.  The second flaw seems to 
be a popular one these days, which is the assumption that ideas can 
be treated like plots of land.  This assumption may make the lawyers' 
lives easier, since they aren't burdened with the task of 
constructing a new framework for intellectual property, but it is 
clearly what programmers call a "dirty hack," i.e. something that was 
thrown in because it was (marginally) better than nothing at the time.

One thing about dirty hacks is that when the programmer has time, or 
when the hack's usefulness has been outlived, is that they either get 
replaced by more elegant code.  It is clear to me, and to many 
others, it seems, that the usefulness of that "plot of land" 
assumption is growing long in tooth, and needs to be rethought 
carefully, before a tiny handful of large companies wind up owning 
the totality of our cultural and creative output.

If only our lawmakers would have as much pride in -their- code, as 
programmers have in theirs.

Brent



Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 142901 -0400
From "James Maule" <maule@law.villanova.edu>
To <mdelvecchio@visi.com>, <declan@well.com>
Subject Re FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA
	lawsuits


I'm not ignoring that distinction, nor did I argue for perpetual
copyright.

I merely argued that the existence of a term doesn't convert the
property into something that is in the public domain at the outset. So
long as something is protected from copyright, permitting P2P folks to
"take over" the reproduction and distribution part of the process is to
permit theft of the profits that can be generated from someone's
efforts.

So even if there were a "take all" estate tax that took my model train
barn when I died (and it didn't go to my descendants), that wouldn't
justify someone sneaking in without paying the entrance fee.


>>> <mdelvecchio@visi.com> 9/9/03 14239 PM >>>
Ok maybe im missing some critical peice of information, but...

it sounds to me Mr. Maule's argument fails, because he's making an
analogy 
between property law and intellectual property law. that fails because
unlike 
physical property, IP has a built-in TTL (time to live).

from the beginning IP has been designed to expire because lawmakers
knew and 
understood that to create wonderful new IP, we need the ability to draw
upon 
previous ideas. 

and yet, due to the depthless coffers of RIAA/MPIAA/Disney, these
limitations 
are continuously extended.

so i think what we are seeing is a natural sort of backlash to these
continus 
extentions of IP. cause and effect...


matt

--
Matt Del Vecchio





Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 143836 -0400
From "James Maule" <maule@law.villanova.edu>
To <subscriptionbox@squishymedia.com>, <declan@well.com>
Subject Re FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA
	lawsuits



If it is in my self-interest to kill you and in your self-interest to kill me, and if society's self-interest either doesn't care, or favors you, or me, we have a mess. What solves that problem is law... from Constitution through statute to regulation and judicial opinion. Whether or not we agree that there should be copyright protection that creates private property, that is a question separate and apart from the fact that our legal system does so provide. Likewise, perhaps we should communally own all property and not just the O2 that MY houseplants produce for you to breath <G>, but we don't have such a system (and attempts at doing that way haven't worked). So, as long as we have what we have, and even though we can lobby to change it, there's no excuse for a person deciding that in their self-interest they will take what belongs to another under the law, or that they will drive their Humvee through the red light through a crowd of pedestrians because their self-interest in getting somewhere quickly trumps the self-interest survival desires of the pedestrians. The law exists to resolve the conflicts among our individual and collective self-interests.

And, incidentally, I tried, diplomatically, to differentiate between the self-interest that is pursued within the law and the self-interest pursed outside the law. That I have a bias favoring the former and disrespecting the latter is a matter of values.

>>> "E. Miller" <subscriptionbox@squishymedia.com> 9/9/03 15613 PM >>>
Howdy,

Just a comment on this comment I thought that this response was extremely
literal.  All output of labor = personal property, all personal property =
total control and ownership in perpetuity.  What a strange world we'd live
in if that were the case.  I hereby claim eternal ownership of the carbon
dioxide I just exhaled.  Keep your filthy lungs away from my CO2.  Your
houseplants too.  Seriously, I mean it.

Well, if we WANT a society in which everything is a commodity, if everything
can be owned and controlled by transient private entities, then we may just
get that.  But that's a wildly nave and absolutist view of our role as
ephemeral participants in collaborative society built on the eternal
exchange and elaboration of ideas, emotions, materiel goods...

Our individual actions influence the shape of society, sometimes for the
worse, but hopefully for the better.  The same goes for production; it is
best for society if the actions of individuals contributes to the well-being
of society as a whole.  Sometimes that's congruent with self-interest
(entrepreneurialism) and sometime it's not (theft).  Sorry, Adam.

So it strikes me as amusing that the poster (from a good law school, at
that) doesn't differentiate between pure self-interest as expressed by the
entrepreneur (selling admission and claiming eternal ownership of profits)
and pure self-interest as expressed by the putative thief ("stealing" by
consuming an experience with zero marginal cost for the producer).

In the US we have somehow developed this odd collective self-delusion that
there isn't a differentiation between self-interest and collective interest.
And that's absurd.  'Cause you know what?  You're going to die someday.
We're all going to die someday.  And a system that assigns complete control
of physical, social, and cultural contributions to society to entities that
will soon be dead and decomposing...now that's asinine.  Like I said, in an
extreme example don't you dare inhale my CO2.

We have to realize that we can't completely own the experiences that
constitute society any more than we can own air.  But what the hell do I
know, I'm just a reformed ex-music major and a creative content producer...

Eric




Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 144628 -0400
From "James Maule" <maule@law.villanova.edu>
To <rick@rickbradley.com>, <declan@well.com>
Cc <politech@politechbot.com>
Subject Re FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA
	lawsuits


I understand that the inartful expression of the comparison (which I
corrected in another post) can generate the impression I am arguing for
eternal copyright by analogy to other parts of property law. I'm not.
And in fact, technically, there are limits on the extent to which
ownership and control of property can be extended into perpetuity.

That, however, does not mean that a comparison between one part of
property law (ownership of a self-built barn and model railroad layout)
and another part of property law (ownership of copyright) is a
"conflation". To both parts of property law belongs this maxim "If the
property [copyright, barn, or model layout] is owned by a person, no
other person has a right to take it or use it without consent, and if
that consent is conditioned on payment of compensation, a taking or use
without payment of that compensation constitutes civil and criminal
theft, trespass, or illegal appropriation, depending on the
circumstances."

The difference in term of the right (limited term for copyright, much
longer, perhaps perpetual term, for real property) does not translate
into a notion that because the copyright term will end we might as well
ignore the copyright now. There's just no getting around the lack of a
legal difference between stealing a CD from a store and stealing it from
a source closer to its creation. Except, of course, it's a tad more
difficult to shoplift than it is to set up a P2P network that feeds off
the efforts of others.

>>> Rick Bradley <rick@rickbradley.com> 9/9/03 21640 PM >>>
* Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com) [030909 1149]
> From "James Maule" <maule@law.villanova.edu>
>
> So, If I build a barn-like structure with my own hands, and then
build
> a huge model railroad display inside, and then invite the public to
> visit for $10 a visit per person, why should I, after some short
period
> of time, let people in for free? Why can I not pass that building
and
> display on to my kids when I die, giving them something for which
they
> can charge admission? Under current law, the property right (created
by
> my physical efforts and the creativity of how I designed the layout
and
> its accessories) is eternal. (Sure, I'll pay taxes to repay society
for
> the burden my property puts on the environment, for police
protection,
> etc..... just as creative artists pay taxes).
[...]
> But if I were to write a song or make a movie about my model layout
you
> want yourself (or others) to have access to it for free, at least
after
> some short period of time? I'd sue someone who breaks in or tries to
> enter without paying, and the fact that the person is a "fan" of my
> railroad layout doesn't matter. 

Declan, 
What's disturbing to me is that a professor of law affiliated with a
respectable legal program conflates a property right with copyright.

While it is perhaps forgiveable for a layman (such as myself) to
proffer
such an ignorant analogy I'm interested in hearing the excuse Prof.
Maule makes for dealing so sloppily with his legal metaphors.

Rick
-- 
 http//www.rickbradley.com    MUPRN 856
                       |  want the contract to
   random email haiku  |  include. Some of the work would
                       |  now be done offsite.

Jim Maule
Professor of Law, Villanova University School of Law
Villanova PA 19085
maule@law.villanova.edu
http//vls.law.vill.edu/prof/maule
President, TaxJEM Inc (computer assisted tax law instruction)
(www.taxjem.com)
Publisher, JEMBook Publishing Co. (www.jembook.com)
Owner/Developer, TaxCruncherPro (www.taxcruncherpro.com)
Maule Family Archivist & Genealogist (www.maulefamily.com)




To declan@well.com, maule@law.villanova.edu
Date Tue, 9 Sep 2003 144743 -0400
Subject Re FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits
Message-ID <20030910.022851.-113720487.0.terry.s@juno.com>



On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 120234 -0400 Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
writes
> Previous Politech message
> "Reply to Hugh Prestwood and RIAA suing individual P2P users"
> http//www.politechbot.com/p-05050.html

> Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 113631 -0400
> From "James Maule" <maule@law.villanova.edu>

> I don't get the gist of Jason's complaint. Actually, I do.... and it 
> is troubling.

Let me add to those troubles.  

> So, If I build a barn-like structure with my own hands, and then build
> a huge model railroad display inside, and then invite the public to
> visit for $10 a visit per person, why should I, after some short period
> of time, let people in for free? 

Simple answer....  Constitutional law makes an arbitrary construct
wherein IP is different than physical property.   

Troubling answer....  Our Constitution contains certain paradoxes, were
it taken more seriously.  Law seminary teaches some faith based delusions
for pretending the entire legal system is something more solidly rooted
than a self-contradictory house of cards waiting for the right (or wrong)
puff of air.  

Human supremacy in our legal system has a basis in theocracy rooted
Common Law, which is inherently at odds with religious equality so long
as a single citizen of different beliefs exists (eg, those Indians
formerly not taxed, and formerly counted as something other than humans
too, whose beliefs consider humans stewards of the land and not supreme
over nature, whether the ecosystem or other species of animals).  Under
that belief system, private property "ownership of the Earth" is
impossible, and its treatment in European theocracy rooted law a fraud
and paradox, waiting to be collapsed (consider real, chattel, and
personal property from that viewpoint).  (Stipulated, there's also a
neutral legal issue of communications with other species whereby it's
functionally impossible to have a legal system that treats all species
equitably, in balance with discriminatory roots in xtian biblical dogma
calling for tearing down institutionalized legal bigotry that didn't
conflict in 1066 c.e. Europe.)  

Defining IP law to protect ideas for a limited duration is no more or
less arbitrary than other Constitutional constructs that recognize
different forms of private property "real", "personal", "corporate
creature", etc.), or which have distinguished blacks as 3/5th persons for
apportionment and taxation, or Indians as non-humans.  


> Why can I not pass that building and
> display on to my kids when I die, giving them something for which they
> can charge admission? Under current law, the property right (created 
> by my physical efforts and the creativity of how I designed the layout 
> and its accessories) is eternal. 

That example obfuscates the key issue of IP versus physical goods,
assuming the status quo of the legal religion of property law as it
exists today.  

It's the building and display that can be passed down, not an exclusive
claim to the notion of a scale model simulation of a railroad that fits
in a building.  The notion of model railroad patentable technical
designs, or the artistic layout of that track and artwork application of
technologies, are subject to the same IP law issues as a movie or music
CD.  The only real difference is that model train layouts are rarely
copied, as individuals generally are more interested in expressing
individual creativity or adapt layouts to different spaces which invite
differences in application of the same technologies from one creation to
another.  

If it were possible to build an HO train layout with 2500 feet of track,
57 switches, and 20 hot sections, with full landscaping, and do so in
under an hour with negligible difference from how someone else
constructed a layout of the same general technical content, would we see
IP litigation over model trains as we do now over music?  

Conversely, what of music which has great similarities, but where one
artist did not intentionally copy or sample work of another?  That
becomes a controversial area of law, because artists rarely have an end
goal of copying one another in expressing original ideas, and cannot be
expected to live their lives in isolation from radio and musical works of
others for the duration of their creative lives, as engineers do for the
scope of projects with specific intent to create functional equivalent
uPC's or software without reverse engineering or directly copying the IP
content of competitors (over technology "lifetimes" of a few years,
versus entire natural lives for musical influences).  In either case,
it's fully legal under present arbitrary fictions of law to attempt "the
same" end result of emotively influential melodies, or model trains
running around tracks, or an AMD uPC that runs the same code as an Intel
model, so long as there are subtle distinctions in what aspects are not
copied directly, even if other aspects use the same materials in similar
manner (though purchased separately, not using goods stolen from the
predecessor).  

Where such distinctions in law more based on some absolute rational
distinctions, and not subtle creations of law, there might well be less
litigation or ambiguity over the very legalities of such issues.  In any
event, if I were given the same materials my father used to make a model
train setup when I was a kid, and I tried to recreate as closely as
possible what he built, my style would result in a significantly
different model train layout than what he made in the 1960's, no mater
how closely I tried to build a direct replica.  Neither would be as
eternal as a theoretical legal ownership of the pieces, as copper would
corrode, plaster of paris would decay with humidity, and colored plastics
and scenery would oxidize and fade.  Oils would turn to varnishy gunk if
not used and serviced, while parts would wear if used and serviced. 
Ultimately some parts would become junk, while others would survive as
antiques.  

With ideas, most do turn to junk, as technology becomes obselete, while
only a key few survive the ages.  As Ovid remarked long ago, his
(dissident political) poetry would survive, as the expensive stone
monuments of the politicians he criticised turned to waste (under more
acid rain than he ever anticipated).  It may be the very nature of IP law
to have limited duration which helps some ideas last longer than most
physical "property".  

How about a more pragmatic challenge?  

Canada protects IP rights of pharmaceuticals for 10 years, the USA for 25
(in addition to other aspects of price regulation and voluntary marketing
by drug vendors).  The Internet allows me to help my elderly parents save
about $4,000 a year on their medical needs by comparison shopping the USA
market as the cheapest source for some items, and importing others from
Canada, Mexico, or New Zealand, and by shopping for the same items from
OEM's in different markets with arbitrary differences in pricing, or
generics not yet available under USA laws unless imported under wierd USA
drug laws.  

The intent of USA Constitutional provisions for IP law aren't to create
proprietary lifetime rights (of a natural person or Disney Corp
"lifetime"), but to balance incentive for creation with a public gain
from sharing ideas.  Is there a single optimum "lifetime duration" for IP
rights to maximize creation incentives while creating public benefit from
ideas?  Does IP law need to be made more complex, to classify "short
lifetime" technologies separately from "long lifetime" artistic ideas in
order to optimize that balance?  How can such legal notions be defined
rationally, in algebraic formulas which could be differentiated to find
the optimum private and public benefit, recognizing both economic value
and other human benefits less easily reduced to numbers?  

That is, after all, the underlying "legal theology" of present IP law,
which distinguishes IP from other arbitrary legal categories of so-called
"property".  Trains or music are little different than the peculiar model
wherein a recipient becomes the owner of the paper of a letter, while the
sender retains ownership of the ideas expressed, subject to implied
license or Fair Use limits on exclusivity of that ownership.  



Terry  






Reply-To <admin@consumer.net>
From mail@consumer.net (admin)
To <maule@law.villanova.edu>
Cc <declan@well.com>
Subject RE Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits
Date Tue, 9 Sep 2003 144947 -0400

What do you think of www.Archive.org?  This is owned by Amazon and they
reproduce many millions of web pages along with ads to the Alexa service.
They don't have permission from the copyright owners in the vast majority of
cases.  

Russ Smith
http//consumer.net



Date Tue, 9 Sep 2003 115058 -0700 (PDT)
From Peter Boothe <peter@cs.uoregon.edu>
To Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject Re FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits

> Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 113631 -0400
> From "James Maule" <maule@law.villanova.edu>
> To <declan@well.com>
> Subject Re FC Reply to Hugh Prestwood and RIAA suing individual P2P users
>
> Why can I not pass that building and display on to my kids when I die,
> giving them something for which they can charge admission?

You certainly may, although unless you die in an upcoming 2 year window,
every generational transfer will most likely be taxed.

> But if I were to write a song or make a movie about my model layout you
> want yourself (or others) to have access to it for free, at least after
> some short period of time?

Yes.  And the founding fathers agreed and so put in the Constitution that
copyright duration could only last for a limited time.  The relevant
sentence in that section reads

	The Congress shall have power
		...
	To 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;
		(Constitution, Article I, Section 8)

Any system that didn't eventually give your song to everyone would be
unconstitutional.  The niggling, of course, comes about in the phrase
"limited times".  Much wrangling over whether copy-right is a so-called
"natural right" or a "given privilege" can be found at many places on the
internet, but it's pretty clear that the founding fathers didn't want it
lasting for too long as the initial setup was for copyrights to last for
only 14 years.  Currently copyright lasts for the life of the author + 75
years - which many people do not see as a "limited time" at all, leading
to a disconnect between the law and what people believe to be right.

This disconnect has caused people to violate the law on a breathtaking
scale via actions that most seem to feel are not unethical.  Which is a
bad thing for society as a whole, and the only two ways out seem to be to
change the law or change society.

Jason is advocating the first, the MPAA and RIAA are trying to bring about
the second, and it seems like you are saying that nothing is wrong with
the current setup at all.

	-Peter

--
Trying to make bits uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet. The
sooner people accept this, and build business models that take this
into account, the sooner people will start making money again.
    -- Bruce Schneier






Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 115256 -0700
From Jules Agee <julesa@pcf.com>
User-Agent Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv1.1) Gecko/20020827
X-Accept-Language en-us, en
MIME-Version 1.0
To maule@law.villanova.edu
CC declan@well.com

<x-flowed>
Jim,
I believe you're exaggerating the position of the person you're 
responding to. He has some valid points. Too often I have bought a CD 
from an artist who has a good hit single, only to find the rest of the 
songs on the CD are junk. With current CD prices around $20, and 
production costs under $1/unit, I think music fans have some valid 
complaints.

The person you are responding to did in fact say that he does not 
personally download songs illegally. Neither do I, for that matter. He 
did state "I want to reward your talent and keep bread on your table 
because I love your music." His objection is not to get free access 
after "a short period" as you suggest. His specific objection was that 
copyright should not extend beyond the lifetime of the artist.

At some point you have to acknowledge the value to society of having a 
commons, a pool of ideas and culture that we can all access without 
paying someone to find out who it belongs to and get all the royalties 
and legal obstacles out of the way.

The creative person should be able to receive royalties for the duration 
of their lifetime. Their descendants should inherit the real property of 
the creative person, (hopefully some of the royalty payments were used 
to pay life insurance and to buy real property), but they should not be 
able to collect copyright royalties on their ancestors' work.

By your logic, we should all be paying yearly royalties to the composer 
of "Happy Birthday" and Christmas carols, libraries should be shut down, 
and automotive manufacturers should still be paying the descendants of 
the inventor of the wheel.



Date Wed, 10 Sep 2003 002317 +0530
From Devdas Bhagat <devdas@dvb.homelinux.org>
To Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>

On 09/09/03 1202 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote
Quoting Jim Maule
<snip>
> So, If I build a barn-like structure with my own hands, and then build
> a huge model railroad display inside, and then invite the public to
> visit for $10 a visit per person, why should I, after some short period
> of time, let people in for free? Why can I not pass that building and
> display on to my kids when I die, giving them something for which they
> can charge admission? Under current law, the property right (created by
> my physical efforts and the creativity of how I designed the layout and
> its accessories) is eternal. (Sure, I'll pay taxes to repay society for
> the burden my property puts on the environment, for police protection,
> etc..... just as creative artists pay taxes).
But you cannot stop anyone else from replicating the effort you put into
your work and doing the same. On the other hand, copyright does restrain
what another person can do.
Copyright is a temporary monopoly granted by /society/ to people so that
their work can later benefit all of society.
The monopoly is the price paid by society to the thinker of a novel idea
to encourage such thoughts as benefit society, but which will not
benefit the thinker unless said thinker has a monopoly on the idea.
Copyright works for anything which is hard to do the first time, but can
be replicated indefinitely for very low costs.

> But if I were to write a song or make a movie about my model layout you
> want yourself (or others) to have access to it for free, at least after
> some short period of time? I'd sue someone who breaks in or tries to
No. The free access is always there. There is no cost imposed on copying
and replicating your idea. Society sets a value on your creativity by
giving you a limited opportunity to turn that idea into hard cash.

The real benefit to society lies in replicating those ideas, and if you
wish to remove that benefit, then I see that no group of people has any
responsibility to keep your ideas unreplicated.

Think of it as a lead start granted to you in a race to replicate ideas
because you were the first to think of it. Copyright is a *privilege*
granted to thinkers by society for the long term benefit of its members.

> enter without paying, and the fact that the person is a "fan" of my
> railroad layout doesn't matter. Muggers are "fans" of my wallet.... but
> they're not going to get the legal system to support their claim. Oh,
When a mugger takes your money, you are deprived of it.
When your idea is duplicated, you are not deprived of the idea.
<snip>
> So should my grandchildren get to live off my model railroad creation?
> Yes, unless society through its legislatures, imposes a "take all"
I agree with this point.

> estate or similar tax. It ought not be decided by outlaw renegade "do it
> yourself wealth redistribution entrepreneurs" (a fancy word for mugger,
> thief, embezzler, etc.). Sure, my grandchildren could be creative and
> make their own model railroad layout or whatever else suits them. And,
> just as well, these P2P activists can go and create their own music
> rather than stealing someone else's work.
Should society be deprived of the right to copy ideas, to understand
them, to modify and expand on them?
I wonder whether you could create modern society without that right.
We are here because we stand on the shoulders of giants. Would you
rather live in a world in which you did not have access to the ideas of
these people?
I know I would rather not.

<snip>
 
> So the underlying premise of the entire argument of the "we share other
> people's property' crowd makes no sense unless it is viewed as a "I want
> it, you have it, I'll find a way to take it." Hmmm.... sounds like
> several national leaders of the 30s in Europe and the Pacific Rim......
Or you could choose to see them as people who choose to withdraw privileges
granted to a certain section of society because those privileges are
being abused?

If I were to put the reasoning behind copyright in a few lines

"We can copy your idea now, but we choose not to, because the long term
benefit we get from your newer ideas is likely to be greater than the
short term benefit we gain by immediately replicating your idea. In
return for our restraint, you will agree to make your idea freely
replicable by anyone after a certain reasonably short period of time.
During this time, we will not replicate your idea and will let you
obtain what benefits you can by exchanging this idea for other ideas.
To show commitment to this deal, we will enshrine it in the form of a law."

> So, they're "not consumers anymore." So what are they? Can we dare
> utter the words?
Hmmm, if one party to a contract decides not to honour the contract, is
the other party still bound by the terms of that contract?

Devdas Bhagat


Date Tue, 9 Sep 2003 145815 -0400
Subject Re FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits
Content-Type text/plain; delsp=yes; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552)
From Wes Rand <wrand@mac.com>
To declan@well.com

<x-flowed>
On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, at 1202  PM, Declan McCullagh wrote

> The idea that people come to visit and pay $10 because they want to
> expand on my work? Rubbish. They simply want to get in for free because
> they think they're "special" and don't need to abide by the rules that
> bind the rest of us. They're like folks who go straight from the left
> turn lane... and the fact more and more people act so idiotically is
> nothing more but proof that a few bad apples in the barrel, if  
> permitted
> to remain, spoil the rest.
>
> So the underlying premise of the entire argument of the "we share other
> people's property' crowd makes no sense unless it is viewed as a "I  
> want
> it, you have it, I'll find a way to take it." Hmmm.... sounds like
> several national leaders of the 30s in Europe and the Pacific Rim......
>
> So, they're "not consumers anymore." So what are they? Can we dare
> utter the words?
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> --
>
> Jim Maule
> Professor of Law, Villanova University School of Law
> Villanova PA 19085

Declan-

I have to say that I am shocked that a professor of law has such a  
fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of copyright (and its  
cousin, patent.) To equate a physical object -- property -- with a  
creative work reveals a disturbing ignorance on the subject.

Jason wrote an interesting letter expounding upon the debate about  
copyright and how Hugh's ideas undercut the basic concept of copyright.  
Jim's (clumsy) response flies right by the points that Jason makes --  
unusual for distributions on your list. Hopefully we can read a more  
cogent defense of Hugh to keep an interesting debate going.

-Wes Rand



Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 150309 -0400
From "James Maule" <maule@law.villanova.edu>
To <admin@consumer.net>
Cc <declan@well.com>
Subject RE Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits



If a page is copywritten, and it has been reproduced, without
permission, there is a violation. Are there damages? In some instances,
probably not. In others, surely. For example, if a newspaper is charging
an access fee to get to its past issues, and archive.com is grabbing the
pages on the day of publication and making them available for free,
there's no question that archive.com is undercutting the newspaper's
market.

I can think of one defense and it rests on this if the owner of a web
page replaces it, does the earlier version get treated as though the
copyright in it were abandoned? Economics might dictate that the
replacement of a web page, or book, with a later edition, sometimes
makes the earlier edition worth so little that there'd be no damages
anyway, or that because of its "first edition" value, its
misappropriation would generate damages.

The irony is that given what they're trying to do at www.archive.org is
worthwhile in principle, why not ask permission? It is likely they'd get
permission for most pages, especially those that are not commercial in
nature.

>>> mail@consumer.net 9/9/03 24947 PM >>>
What do you think of www.Archive.org?  This is owned by Amazon and
they
reproduce many millions of web pages along with ads to the Alexa
service.
They don't have permission from the copyright owners in the vast
majority of
cases.  

Russ Smith
http//consumer.net 








Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 150552 -0400
From Jonathan Peterson <jonathan@way.nu>
User-Agent Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv1.4) Gecko/20030624
X-Accept-Language en-us, en
MIME-Version 1.0
To declan@well.com
Subject Re FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits

<x-flowed>
Jesus Christ I'm tired of people who try to equate ideas with THINGS. 

James, you seem like a bright guy, see if this helps

RIAA, MPAA and other big content companies and software patent 
supporters don't want to protect the revenue from your train museum, 
they want want a cut of the action for the very idea of a train and they 
want it for eternity.  Big Content wants money everytime anyone builds a 
model train display, whether it's for personal use, commercial sale, or 
educational purposes in a museum.  They want money from the 
manufacturers of the trains, the tracks, and probably the wood for the 
barn.  They want money when someone paints a picture of their train 
display, writes a fictional book about riding the train or a documentary 
about it's construction.  In fact is I were to build a big barn and 
charge people to look at a doll collection they want a piece of THAT, 
welcome to business model patents. 

Even if they tear down your train museum because it is no longer 
profitable, they want to haul my ass into jail for spending thousands of 
dollars of my own money rebuilding it from scratch because it was 
something I loved (check on the current state of classic film stock that 
is protected from restoration by the MPAA).

Ideas are not things.  Ideas surely have value, but the idea itself is 
not devalued when shared.  Please tell me who loses money when 
Kindergarten  teachers in Sweden sing a song with their class or when 
taxi drivers turn on the radio? 

The use of real-world metaphors for things that are not devalued when 
shared is a lie.  Don't listen to RIAA's lies and don't fall under their 
spell. 

Jonathan Peterson
e - jonathan@way.nu
p - 404-966-9493
w - http//www.way.nu
w - http//www.corate.com/amateur


From "Dave McClure" <dmcclure@usiia.org>
To <declan@well.com>
Subject RE Jim Maule's defense
Date Tue, 9 Sep 2003 150804 -0400
MIME-Version 1.0
Content-Type text/plain;


Declan, a response to Jim Maule.  Personal opinion, of course. . .

Gosh, Jim, what a lovely planet you must live on!

Here on planet Earth, however, things work a little differently than you
describe.  Before you ever laid the first nail in your barn, or set one
piece of track on your model railroad, you would be forced by contract --
the only contract that would enable anyone to ever hear of your work -- to
sell all rights to your creation to the MegaBucks Corporation.

MegaBucks would open it for a few weeks, and when sales fell off would stick
it in a warehouse, never to be seen again.

Your children and grandchildren would not benefit from your works, because
you have already sold all the rights to keep your family fed years ago.
Eventually, the railroad and building would rot away (much as so many of the
world's films are rotting today in studio vaults).  And your work would
never be seen by anyone, ever, again.

Hard to believe?  Just ask artists like Janis Ian, who is barred from
selling her own works from the Sixties.  She signed a contract assuming that
in a fixed number of years she would be able to again benefit from her
creative efforts, as the contract specified.  Surprise!  MegaBucks Corp got
Congress to extend the number of years.  And extend.  And extend.  The
contracts signed in good faith by artists aren't worth spit.

The people who created limited copyrights were not the Fascists and Nazis of
the 1930's (but kudos for a GREAT cheap shot, there, Jim!).  They were the
framers of the US Constitution.

And what they understood was this  If we allow a handful of corporations to
lock up all aspects of culture, most of it will rot in vaults.  There will
be no great symphonies from the 20th century.  No great literature.  No
great films.  In its place will be a great void of ambivalence fostered by
companies whose charter to increase the wealth of their shareholders
over-rides any consideration of culture.  Don't believe it?  Try to buy the
works of artists from the 1920's, other than the small handful who are
slapped into "greatest hits" volumes.

I won't side with the downloaders.  Sure, they are breaking the law.  But I
believe that it is US law governed by the Constitution that must rule our
legal response to copyright violations, not the "off with their heads"
approach of the entertainment industry.  And not the members of Congress who
would sell our heritage to benefit a handful of corporations.  Funny how we
forget that the greatest liberties we enjoy were bought by "criminals" who
"broke the law" with acts of civil disobedience.  I believe that if old Sam
Adams were alive today, he'd be downloading from KaZaA and burning his own
CDs.

Note to members of Congress  Does it strike anyone that this seems
perilously close to what happened with that Prohibition thing you tried to
do?  Gosh, do you think the 60 MILLION US DOWNLOADERS (and the friends and
relatives of those being sued today) will have any impact on the elections
next year?

As for the hand-wringing emotional appeals of poor starving artists, widows
and orphans from whom the downloaders are stealing the bread from their very
mouths. . .well, it is specious nonsense.  Anyone who has ever worked in the
music industry knows that the money you get up front is likely the only
money you will ever see, and that this battle is less over right and wrong
than an entrenched entertainment bureaucracy petrified by new technologies
and consumer trends.

Before we go charging off to fight the good fight against those evil
law-breakers, let's ask a couple of basic questions

1)  Of the damages recovered by the RIAA, what percentage actually goes to
the artists who are allegedly injured?  Does the money even go the studios,
or is it kept by the RIAA?

2)  How many of the accused benefited in any way from their misdeeds?  Did
they make anything close to $150,000 per song, or did they just have a
collection of songs they liked to listen to?

3)  If their cause is just, why is the RIAA refusing to compensate ISPs for
processing the subpoenas?

4)  If this is aimed at scofflaws and not a twisted misuse of the law for
competitive advantage, how many subpoenas have been served to the America
Online division of AOL Time Warner, a major member of the RIAA? (last time I
looked, the answer was "zip, zero, none.")

5)  How is it possible that the war on terrorism, a major economic downturn,
a lack of new and innovative creative works (do you think it is an accident
they are having to drag geriatric rockers out of retirement to fill the
venues?), the music industry's slap on the hand for price fixing, and its
reliance on an obsolete distribution method. . .how is it possible that NONE
OF THESE FACTORS contributed to the loss of CD sales?  How come only file
sharing is the cause?

If King George thinks we will continue to allow these taxes on the tea we
want. . .oops.  Wrong injustice.  If the music industry thinks we will
continue to pay outrageous fees for a tiny vinyl disk filled with crap. .
.well, hell.  I think I'm just gonna dress up like an Indian and head down
to the harbor.

Regards,
Dave McClure





Date Tue, 9 Sep 2003 141242 -0500
From Rick Bradley <rick@rickbradley.com>
To James Maule <maule@law.villanova.edu>
Cc declan@well.com, politech@politechbot.com
Subject Re FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits


* James Maule (maule@law.villanova.edu) [030909 1347]
> I understand that the inartful expression of the comparison (which I
> corrected in another post) can generate the impression I am arguing for
> eternal copyright by analogy to other parts of property law. I'm not.
> And in fact, technically, there are limits on the extent to which
> ownership and control of property can be extended into perpetuity.
> 
> That, however, does not mean that a comparison between one part of
> property law (ownership of a self-built barn and model railroad layout)
> and another part of property law (ownership of copyright) is a
> "conflation". To both parts of property law belongs this maxim "If the
> property [copyright, barn, or model layout] is owned by a person, no
> other person has a right to take it or use it without consent, and if
> that consent is conditioned on payment of compensation, a taking or use
> without payment of that compensation constitutes civil and criminal
> theft, trespass, or illegal appropriation, depending on the
> circumstances."

The problem with the analogy before and the explanation here is that
copyright law is not property law, nor is it a subset nor a derivative.
As you are aware the long genealogy of these branches of law share
little common history, the establishment of the separate rights in this
country proceeds from disparate sources, as well the statutory and
caselaw evolution of these bodies of law are highly divergent.

Copyright is not property, but is established in our Constitution as a
limited monopoly over certain rights.  The conflation of property with
copyright is a relatively recent (political) campaign to bestow the
protections commonly associated with property upon a set of rights of a
fundamentally different nature.

The limited monopolies established by the Constitution create certain
tradeoffs.  As an attorney friend (and Politech subscriber, Howard
Merry, Esq.) once put it to me

    "[It is an] unavoidable Constitutional fact that copyrights are
    explicitly in some sort of balance with a concomitant reduction in
    freedom of speech.  Regardless of what the Court thinks about that
    balance at the current time. . ."

I'm at a loss to reconcile the behavior of the institution of copyright
with the rights afforded to private property.

> The difference in term of the right (limited term for copyright, much
> longer, perhaps perpetual term, for real property) does not translate
> into a notion that because the copyright term will end we might as well
> ignore the copyright now. There's just no getting around the lack of a
> legal difference between stealing a CD from a store and stealing it from
> a source closer to its creation. Except, of course, it's a tad more
> difficult to shoplift than it is to set up a P2P network that feeds off
> the efforts of others.

I take no umbrance with discussions of copyright terms, nor the exercise
of defensible copyrights under legislated terms.  If a creator holds a
right in a work then that right adheres until the time of its
expiration.

However, we deal in no fine distinction when we discuss the theft of a
fixed expression of a work (such as a CD within the confines of a shop),
versus the infringement of copyrights held by the creator of a work.

There is a very simple way around the purported lack of legal
distinction between property theft and infringement of copyright
recognition that the legal distinction not only exists but is as
fundamental as the difference between recourse for a gunshot wound and
the cause of action for violating the terms of a contract.  While a
popular analogy can confuse the layman, the law is clear on how these 
matters are miles apart.

Rick
-- 
 http//www.rickbradley.com    MUPRN 633
                       |  to charge them fees for
   random email haiku  |  access to songs, movies and
                       |  other media.

)
To maule@law.villanova.edu
Cc declan@well.com, "bcleland" <bcleland@ipi.org>,
   "policyguy1" <mmatthews@ipi.org>
Subject Re FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits
MIME-Version 1.0
X-Mailer Lotus Notes Release 5.0.11   July 24, 2002
From "Thomas A Giovanetti" <tomg@ipi.org>
Message-ID <OFF74A1332.B628DE62-ON86256D9C.0069410B-86256D9C.0069C41E@org>
Date Tue, 9 Sep 2003 141514 -0500

I was delighted to see your posting.
I thought I was the only one who believed in a perpetual right to intellectual property. I have dared not voice it until now.


We do a lot of work at IPI on intellectual property, but I have never dared argue a perpetual right to IP. But I have always believed that there is absolutely no difference between &quot;real&quot; and &quot;intellectual&quot; property.


I agree that Jim Henson's descendents should control and own the rights to his creations, in perpetuity, unless they sell those rights to someone else, who THEN should control them in perpetuity.
all the arguments about the benefits to society of something moving into the public domain are unsupportable. In fact, it is generally recognized that the minute something moves into the public domain, it disappears, because there is no longer any incentive for anyone to do anything further with it.


Thank you for voicing this opinion, and I'd invite you to further discussions about advancing this argument.

_____<br>
Tom Giovanetti<br>
President<br>
Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI)<br>
http//www.ipi.org<br>
tomg@ipi.org<br>
<br>
*Note new address<br>
1660 S. Stemmons Freeway<br>
Suite 475<br>
Lewisville, TX &nbsp;75067<br>
<br>


From "Matt Del Vecchio" <mdelvecchio@visi.com>
To "'James Maule'" <maule@law.villanova.edu>, <declan@well.com>
Subject RE FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAAlawsuits
Date Tue, 9 Sep 2003 142037 -0500
Message-ID <001801c37707$742c69d0$f600a8c0@battlewagon>
MIME-Version 1.0


i was referring to "So should my grandchildren get to live off my model
railroad creation?" revenue bit.. it seemed to be designed to provoke a
'yes' in order to equate that w/ a 'yes' on whether Hugh's grandkids
should inherit his IP revenue.

matt



Reply-To <admin@consumer.net>
From mail@consumer.net (admin)
To "'James Maule'" <maule@law.villanova.edu>
Cc <declan@well.com>
Subject RE Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits
Date Tue, 9 Sep 2003 152204 -0400


I thin everyone accepts archive.org as being worthwhile.  They don't ask
permission because it would be too costly to get the permission and to cull
out all the ones where permission wasn't granted.  They would never be able
to continue operating if they did that.

The main concern is liability.  Lawyers use Archive.org to make cases
against people for a variety of reason such as intellectual property issues,
defamation, etc.  

As for your other argument, are you saying that if users download music that
is not profitable then that is a defense?  Maybe works that are no longer
available or works that people just aren't buying?  How about new movies
that are destined to lose money based on their box office receipts?  What if
a music downloader said "I wouldn't buy this, I would only accept it if it
was downloaded free?"


 
 
Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 152222 -0400
From "James Maule" <maule@law.villanova.edu>
To <tomg@ipi.org>
Cc <bcleland@ipi.org>, <mmatthews@ipi.org>, <declan@well.com>
Subject Re FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA
	lawsuits
 
My several posts in response to others' reactions haven't yet
circulated. I may be doing something wrong, Declan.. (I know Declan is
getting them as he's CC'd on my replies).

In one of those posts I clarified that I'm not advocating perpetual
rights, and noted that even as to real property there are some
limitations on a person's ability or right to control it into
perpetuity.

But I don't agree that copyright should end at the death of the
creator, because of the hypo involving the artist who dies months after
his work becomes a hit. That is, in fact, one reason for the original
"lifetime plus" approach.

If a corporation creates something (through employees who agree that
they labor on behalf of the corporation), then a lifetime ownership
could be eternal.

It may be that corporations ought not exist, or ought not be treated as
having eternal lifetimes, but that's a different question.

 
Jim Maule
Professor of Law, Villanova University School of Law
Villanova PA 19085
maule@law.villanova.edu 
http//vls.law.vill.edu/prof/maule 
President, TaxJEM Inc (computer assisted tax law instruction)
(www.taxjem.com)
Publisher, JEMBook Publishing Co. (www.jembook.com)
Owner/Developer, TaxCruncherPro (www.taxcruncherpro.com)
Maule Family Archivist & Genealogist (www.maulefamily.com)


 

Jim Maule
Professor of Law, Villanova University School of Law
Villanova PA 19085
maule@law.villanova.edu
http//vls.law.vill.edu/prof/maule
President, TaxJEM Inc (computer assisted tax law instruction)
(www.taxjem.com)
Publisher, JEMBook Publishing Co. (www.jembook.com)
Owner/Developer, TaxCruncherPro (www.taxcruncherpro.com)
Maule Family Archivist & Genealogist (www.maulefamily.com)

 


Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 152723 -0400
From "James Maule" <maule@law.villanova.edu>
To <mdelvecchio@visi.com>, <declan@well.com>
Subject RE FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAAlawsuits
 
I don't have grandchildren (yet) but when and if they arrive they'll
have a presence in my mind far different than my great great great great
grandchildren (if they ever exist). The latter will need to fend for
themselves. The former are natural objects of my bounty and giving them
some financial protection isn't quite the same as creating a perpetual
copyright. Grandchildren were mentioned in the post to which I
originally responded so I stayed with that generation.

>>> "Matt Del Vecchio" <mdelvecchio@visi.com> 9/9/03 32037 PM >>>
i was referring to "So should my grandchildren get to live off my
model
railroad creation?" revenue bit.. it seemed to be designed to provoke
a
'yes' in order to equate that w/ a 'yes' on whether Hugh's grandkids
should inherit his IP revenue.

matt

 
Professor of Law, Villanova University School of Law<br>
Villanova PA 19085<br>
maule@law.villanova.edu <br>
http//vls.law.vill.edu/prof/maule <br>
President, TaxJEM Inc (computer assisted tax law instruction)<br>
(www.taxjem.com)<br>
Publisher, JEMBook Publishing Co. (www.jembook.com)<br>
Owner/Developer, TaxCruncherPro (www.taxcruncherpro.com)<br>
Maule Family Archivist &amp; Genealogist (www.maulefamily.com)<br>

From "Kowieski, Jeff" <JKowieski@wipfli.com>
To <declan@well.com>, <politech@politechbot.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime 09 Sep 2003 193607.0318 (UTC) 

Jim- I see you on the ABA lists every now and again.  Just wanted to
tell you I thought this was concise and right on point.  When put in the
context you did, it should be the end of the discussion, it's jus that a
model railway is more tangible than a bunch of 1 and 0s, I guess.

Anyway, well spoken.

Regards,

jeff

- _______________________________________
Jeffrey W. Kowieski, CPA, JD
Senior Manager
Wipfli Ullrich Bertelson, LLP
Office 715.858.6682 // Fax 715.832.0475 
www.wipfli.com
A Member of Moores Rowland International (MRI)
 


Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 154243 -0400
From "James Maule" <maule@law.villanova.edu>
To <rick@rickbradley.com>
Cc <politech@politechbot.com>, <declan@well.com>
Subject Re FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA
	lawsuits


One quick point. Copyright originally was granted by the King (the
Crown). So, too, real property's origins are in feudal tenures granted
by the King and thence down through subtenants and vassals. The fact
that real property law had evolved somewhat when the first copyright
statutes were enacted doesn't detract from both real property law and
copyright law having origins in the principle that all ownership rights
originated with the Crown.

After all, every aspect of the law ultimately rests on rights, duties,
and privileges of one kind or another. Areas of law might not be
identical twins, but their relationship is close enough to make
analogies between one and another useful regardless of how the area is
subcategorized.



From "Ryan Porter" <rlucianporter@hotmail.com>
To <declan@well.com>
References <6.0.0.22.2.20030909114510.01f48af0@mail.well.com>
Subject Re Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits
Date Tue, 9 Sep 2003 154818 -0400
MIME-Version 1.0


In seems that in haste to toss their respective two-cents in, Hugh, Jason,
and Jim are each making gross exaggerations.

Hugh claims he "labored for years to create those songs", but fails to
mention that hundreds before him labored for far longer to create the works
of which his songs are derivatives.  (Or does Hugh think his work is
completely original?)  Apparently, he thinks he can extract styles and
sounds and arrangements from previous songwriters and generations, change
them around a little bit, write new lyrics, etc., and make them miraculously
"his".  (I am not trying to insult Hugh; a song is more than the sum of the
lyrics, musical structure, arrangement, production, etc.  One can fairly
ask, however, if he has ever written even one single song the music of which
did not heavily resemble another?)  The world at large is at least partly
responsible for "your" songs.  Yes, Hugh, the trading of your songs of P2P
networks is wrong.  Yes, it is theft.  Yes, you should be upset.  You should
not, however, pretend to be living in a cultural vacuum.  You did not create
your songs from nothing, and you have no right to give nothing back.  These
last two points are really secondary, though, and concerning length of
copyright protection.  The central point that file-sharing copyrighted
material is theft ( both illegal and wrong ), and that it financially
affects both you and your colleagues, is all that needed to be said.
Instead you chose to give your detractors a logical hole through which a
truck can be driven.  Oh, and sensationalism doesn't help your cause,
either, i.e., "A society that doesn't value a commodity enough to pay for it
will soon see the creation and production of that commodity cease."  Do you
honestly think music in general is in danger?

Jason's arguments are also hit-and-miss.  I agree that copyrights should not
extend in perpetuity.  He loses me, however, when he writes "Your right used
to be able to trump technology.  That is no longer the case."  Is that to be
read "because we have the technology to undermine your rights, you rights
are essentially nullified"?  Both Jason and Hugh contend there has been a
"lumping together [of] many professions", but disagree who has done this.  I
think most people separate the artists from the corporations.  The feeling
is along the lines of one of these two  if the artist/band is a big name,
with multi-platinum records "they won't be missing my $10"; and if the
artist is not "oh, the artist probably isn't getting any of the money
anyway...it's the record company's greed that has that artist starving, not
mine."  Nevermind the absurdity of the views or the fact that the action is
still theft, I'm simply pointing out a more realistic viewpoint of the
file-sharer.  No one believes it's all "one big ugly corporate caricature".
I strongly feel, however, that statements such as Hugh's tend to create a
"lumping together".  Maybe artists should, as Jason suggests, "focus [some
of their] ire upon the organization that claims to represent [them] to the
public", for at least allowing the impression, whether true or not, that
artists are abused by the industry.  Artists standing hand-in-hand with the
big 5 will not help your cause, Hugh.  That seems beyond obvious.

My only response to Jim is with regard to this statement
        So the underlying premise of the entire argument of the "we share
other people's property' crowd makes no sense unless it is viewed as a "I
want it, you have it, I'll find a way to take it."

And the underlying premise of Jim's argument makes no sense unless viewed as
one of the two
1)"we don't like and have no need for 'public domain' ";
2)"we like to pretend things in the public domain just magically appear
there without any single item ever having been added."

If we could stop all the sensationalism, the point would be simple, clear,
and concise.  Theft is occurring, and the affected persons are (rightfully)
upset and doing something about it.  The question of how long copyrights
should endure is, of course, related (but only weakly) and manages, in this
context, only to make the speaker sound greedy, regardless of which side the
argument comes from.

Ryan Porter

------------------
Research Analyst for the astrophysical spectral simulation code Cloudy.
www.nublado.org



Date Tue, 9 Sep 2003 160450 -0400 (EDT)
From "Matthew G. Saroff" <msaroff@fellspt.charm.net>
Reply-To "Matthew G. Saroff" <msaroff@pobox.com>
To Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
cc politech@politechbot.com
Subject Re FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits


On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Declan McCullagh wrote

> From "James Maule" <maule@law.villanova.edu>
>
> I don't get the gist of Jason's complaint. Actually, I do.... and it is
> troubling.
>
> So, If I build a barn-like structure with my own hands, and then build
> a huge model railroad display inside, and then invite the public to
> visit for $10 a visit per person, why should I, after some short period
> of time, let people in for free? Why can I not pass that building and
> display on to my kids when I die, giving them something for which they
> can charge admission? Under current law, the property right (created by
> my physical efforts and the creativity of how I designed the layout and
> its accessories) is eternal. (Sure, I'll pay taxes to repay society for
> the burden my property puts on the environment, for police protection,
> etc..... just as creative artists pay taxes).
	The answer here is fairly simple because when someone occupies a
space in your barn, or takes your car, they deprive you of the use of that
space or that car.
	Intellectual product (I believe that using the generally used term
for IP is ceding half the argument) is different.
	Samuel Clemens descendents are just as capable of reading or
creating derivatives of "Tom Sawyer" as they always were.  Even if I copy
the entire book and put it on the web.
	IP is a temporary monopoly granted for the purpose of encouraging
the creative arts and sciences (IIRC that's the line from the
constitution).
	It's no more property than the grant of a royal monopoly to the
East India Tea Company in the 1500s, or the granting of a liquor license
today.
-- 
Matthew Saroff
At some point in the future, the total number of lawsuits being prosecuted
by the Church of Scientology will exceed the population of the world
Extrapolating on current trends, this will occur on April 1, 2005.



Date Tue, 9 Sep 2003 150546 -0500
From Rick Bradley <rick@rickbradley.com>
To James Maule <maule@law.villanova.edu>
Cc politech@politechbot.com, declan@well.com
Subject Re FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits

* James Maule (maule@law.villanova.edu) [030909 1443]
> One quick point. Copyright originally was granted by the King (the
> Crown). So, too, real property's origins are in feudal tenures granted
> by the King and thence down through subtenants and vassals. The fact
> that real property law had evolved somewhat when the first copyright
> statutes were enacted doesn't detract from both real property law and
> copyright law having origins in the principle that all ownership rights
> originated with the Crown.

To pick nits, copyright originally was granted by the Queen [0], but yes
it originated with the Crown.  As of the end of the 18th century all
American legal rights originated with the Constitution, where property
rights were established as independent from copyrights and other limited
monopolies designed to enrich the public domain and promote the progress
of Science and the Useful Arts.  Though these rights stem from the
common origin of the Constitution (as do rights to bear arms, rights to
due process, etc.) these rights were separately established and have
remained distinct to this date.

> After all, every aspect of the law ultimately rests on rights, duties,
> and privileges of one kind or another. Areas of law might not be
> identical twins, but their relationship is close enough to make
> analogies between one and another useful regardless of how the area is
> subcategorized.

Useful, or harmful.

[0] In 1710 via the Statute of Anne  http//www.copyrighthistory.com/anne.html

Rick
-- 
 http//www.rickbradley.com    MUPRN 677
                       |  that much attention
   random email haiku  |  to all those screams while I am
                       |  stompin Southern Flags.



Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 162849 -0400
From "James Maule" <maule@law.villanova.edu>
To <rick@rickbradley.com>
Cc <politech@politechbot.com>, <declan@well.com>
Subject Re FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA
	lawsuits

You're right.. it's a Queen. Mary I, that is, who in 1557 gave control
of all printing and book distribution to the Stationer's Company. The
1709 Act, effective 1710, is the first "modern" copyright statute (I
guess it is "modern" because it is more like what exists now than the
monopolistic arrangement of the 16th century).





Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 140040 -0700
From Jules Agee <julesa@pcf.com>
User-Agent Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv1.1) Gecko/20020827
X-Accept-Language en-us, en
MIME-Version 1.0
To James Maule <maule@law.villanova.edu>
CC declan@well.com
Subject Re FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA	lawsuits

Comments interspersed below

James Maule wrote
> Jules,
> 
> Declan has not yet posted my clarifications... I don't seek perpetual
> copyright. And I tried to write in a way that acknowledged Jason as an
> advocate/defender/counsel rather than a perpetrator of P2P.
> 
> Jason's post, though, didn't make the proposition that copyright terms
> should be more limited. He defended P2P practices that are not limited
> to songs written by dead artists. The P2P folks don't make distinctions
> based on whether the artist is alive (and in terms of what circulates,
> most artists are in fact alive).

Agreed, and I don't want to suggest that indiscriminate file sharing is 
in any way justified. But I understand the motive behind the consumer 
backlash, and I think the average P2P perp is less like a mugger and 
more like a small-time shoplifter. We could probably get rid of most of 
this shoplifting problem if the stores would start selling the 
shoplifted candy bars one by one instead of by the box.

And I think the real impact of the problem thus far has been 
exaggerated. There is no hard data one way or the other, but I bet a lot 
of these people buy the CD after downloading a few of the songs on it. 
After all, most home/car stereos don't play MP3 yet.

On the other hand, I don't really object to the RIAA lawsuits either. 
It's within their rights. They won't stop the real pirates, the people 
who make money by printing bogus CDs, and people who know how to protect 
their identities online. But they will be able to effectively prevent 
regular joe music lovers from sharing files. Fine, sic the lawyers on 
your customers, what do I care. Like I said, I understand the backlash.

> Even so, suppose two artists, age 23, write and produce and sing top 40
> hits. A month later, one of the artists dies. His kids starve and the
> other artists' kids don't? That's why there's a post-death extension.
> Sure, it could be refined (and made more complicated) to tie it to
> whether the artist had dependents, etc., at the time of death, but I
> doubt the P2P folks would respect that.

That's what life insurance is for. Why should artist's kids be any 
different from welders or truck drivers or grocers or computer 
technicians? Nobody else gets paychecks after they're gone. But my only 
real objection in that arena is to 80+ year copyright terms, which 
Congress seems to extend every time Mickey Mouse's first cartoon 
approaches the public domain limit. I think most people don't appreciate 
how much ideas in the public domain impact our culture, our technology, 
and innovation in every area of our society.

> As for the $20 CD... I belong to CD clubs that sell for less than that.
> Sure, we often get junk packaged in with the gold. Newspapers have been
> that way for years... I want the news, the sports, the comics, the
> business pages, and a few other things .. On Sunday I get swamped with
> mountains of ads for women's clothing, etc etc. The CD marketing
> approach is stupid, and the marketplace would sort it out, but for the
> existence of the P2P black market.
> 
> Jim

I think the P2P black market IS the marketplace sorting things out. 
Unfortunately, the marketplace doesn't have an innate respect for law. 
Hopefully the recording industry will finally get in gear and 
aggressively market a reasonable, fairly priced alternative before 
someone popularizes a P2P system which uses encryption technology to 
hide the identity of the file sharers. Such a system is actually 
available today, but few know about it... so far, anyway.

Take care, Jim.
-Jules



Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 140752 -0700
To declan@well.com
From Mike Masnick <mike@techdirt.com>
Subject Re FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits

<x-flowed>
Well, now we know why Prof. Maule is a law professor and not an 
economics  or business professor.

I'm actually getting sick of lawyers (who should know better) equating file 
sharing with theft.  It's (in some cases) copyright infringement, but it's 
not theft.

Anyway, as a first pass, you could argue that Prof. Maule is talking about 
a service.  He's not profiting off of the barn and model train he built - 
but the service of letting people view it.  I didn't realize that in buying 
music we were buying a service.  We've always been told it was a good ("the 
song") and not a service ("listening to the song"), and a good doesn't 
include the same perpetual rights that Prof. Maule describes.  Once I sell 
it, it's out of my hands, and it's up to whoever bought it to figure out 
what to do next with it.  The standard right of first sale stuff.

So, maybe it is the "service" that musicians are selling.  Let's assume 
that's the case and move forward from there. It's still up to the musicians 
to figure out the best way to perpetually market that service if they want 
to continually make money off of it.  The market is telling the music 
industry they want the service delivered online in a convenient package, 
and the music industry is ignoring them.  Thus, it's no surprise that 
people have cut back their spending.

No one is telling anyone they need to give up the *means* by which they 
offer their services.  In Prof. Maule's case, it's the barn and toy trains 
that are the means of offering the service.  In the case of musicians it's 
their ability to make music - not the music itself.  The ability to make 
music is something they own.  The music itself, like the tour of the barn, 
is a fleeting service.  Just like Prof. Maule built his barn and trainset, 
a musician builds his skills and musical knowledge.  Then, they have to go 
out and figure out a way to make money off of it.  However, if the markets 
change, then the way they once made money may no longer work in the 
future.  They still own their own ability to make music, but that doesn't 
mean they're granted a perpetual right to force people to use the old service.

Anyway, let's look at Prof. Maule's barn & train example.  What if I go 
ahead and build my own barnlike structure, with my own hands with a model 
train display inside and then decide to invite the public in to visit for 
$5 per person?  Better yet, what if I decided that since people want so 
badly to see those trains I can do something even better... I let people 
into my barn for free to see the trains, and then sell them their own model 
train kits, posters, books about model trains and other tangible 
items.  Or, I could also sell my own services (for future work) in building 
barn-like structures and model train displays.

According to Prof. Maule, I'm now a thief because he believes that anyone 
who builds something has an eternal right to profit off of it - and I've 
now removed the ability for him to profit off his labors from years 
ago.   I don't think I'm a thief, in this case.  I think I'm a good 
business man who recognizes what the market is doing and how to offer a 
better service and make money in a different way.  Prof. Maule will quickly 
discover that his "right" to eternal profit dwindles when all of his 
customers start coming to my barn instead.

I've found a way to take something that historically people have paid for, 
utilize the economics of "free" to act as a promotional tool, and figured 
out a way to beat the competition.

If only certain industries would learn to do the same...

Mike

http//www.techdirt.com/



Date Tue, 9 Sep 2003 141325 -0700 (PDT)
From "Matthew M. Boedicker" <mboedick@mboedick.org>
Subject Re FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits
To declan@well.com


Why is it that every argument against reasonable copyright lengths amounts to
contrived analogies to the physical world? Despite the RIAA media campaign to
equate copyright violation with theft in the minds of the American public,
it's simply not the same thing. Physical property and intellectual property
are indeed completely different animals and we need to think about them
differently (yes this means more effort).

This makes it entirely possible that collective physical property is a bad
idea and collective intellectual property is a good idea. In fact collective
intellectual property has always been the norm. Art doesn't happen in a
vacuum, it is always a continuation of what has come before.

And how lawyer-like to drag some of the most egregious wrongs in history
(slavery and totalitarianism) into the debate.

X-Mailer Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.1 
Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 171520 -0400
From "James Maule" <maule@law.villanova.edu>
To <jack@rigley.org>, <declan@well.com>
Subject Re FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA
	lawsuits
Mime-Version 1.0


Even though I've seen the post come through in which I clarified my
point that I was NOT advocating unlimited terms, somehow the impression
that I was (arising, understandably, from a not quite well drafted
sentence which I corrected) continues to have a life of its own.

Nonetheless, I never read Jason's post to be, "After the term of
protection ends it ought to be ok to share the works on a P2P network."
That's not an issue. Nor was that the point of Jason's post and the one
to which he replied. Nor is it a matter solely of whether the existing
term is too long. Quite simply, even if the term were for some very
short period shorter than it ever has been historically, the P2P crowd
would still be undermining the protection of the copyright provisions.
And yes, hyperbole works; it gets people's attention, and sometimes it
makes it easier for those who can't understand nuances to grasp the
bigger picture. Even so, the hyperbole really isn't all that
hyperbolic.

At lease SOME P2P folks admit, "I don't want to pay for this and so
I'll take it for free." Justifications range from "everyone does it" to
"the capitalist system is at fault." But the notion of "I don't want to
pay for this and so I'll take it for free (and I'm not waiting for the
copyright term to end)"  really ISN'T different from the person who
looks at someone else's property and says, "I don't want to pay for this
and so I'll take it for free." True, muggers and nations seeking
"breathing room" use physical violence, trespassers usually don't, and
copyright violators don't... so what? Taking an uninvited and
impermissible free ride on someone else's back isn't all that different,
morally (or legally) from benefitting from the efforts of people dragged
into slavery. Slavery is far worse, because it also involved total
deprivation of human rights, but cause and motivation rested on the same
economic immorality as do all the other practices I crtiticize, for all
involve riding free, uninvited, on someone else's efforts. 


From Alex Russell <alex@netWindows.org>
Organization netWindows.org
To maule@law.villanova.edu
Subject Re FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits
Date Tue, 9 Sep 2003 162350 -0500


Note I'm a nobody. Just some guy who writes software for fun and profit. I'm
not a lawyer, not an artist, and not a music type, so please take this with 
whatever salt serving size you feel appropriate.

> I don't get the gist of Jason's complaint. Actually, I do.... and it is
> troubling.

Although no less unsettling to my mind than your miss-characterization of the
basic trade-offs we make in this country in order to promote continued
creativity for both common and individual benefit.

> So, If I build a barn-like structure with my own hands, and then build
> a huge model railroad display inside, and then invite the public to
> visit for $10 a visit per person, why should I, after some short period
> of time, let people in for free?

You are under no obligation to do so. The barn is squarely your *physical*
property, as is what it contains. You have the ability to cordon off access to
your one-and-only barn at any time you feel is right, and no one can say "boo"
to you. Property rights make the democracy go 'round.

What you can't do, however, is remove the memories of everyone that walked
through your barn. In this way, you creation is unguard-able as soon as you 
open
it up in order to derive economic benefit from it. That's how IP works, after
all. You can't own some chunk of someone else's brain.

> Why can I not pass that building and
> display on to my kids when I die, giving them something for which they
> can charge admission? Under current law, the property right (created by
> my physical efforts and the creativity of how I designed the layout and
> its accessories) is eternal. (Sure, I'll pay taxes to repay society for
> the burden my property puts on the environment, for police protection,
> etc..... just as creative artists pay taxes).
>
> But if I were to write a song or make a movie about my model layout you
> want yourself (or others) to have access to it for free, at least after
> some short period of time?

"short" is your qualification of a societally agreed upon time frame. You can
call it whatever you like, but it won't make it less fair. You can, however,
lobby to have it changed if you dissagree with its current value.

> I'd sue someone who breaks in or tries to
> enter without paying, and the fact that the person is a "fan" of my
> railroad layout doesn't matter. Muggers are "fans" of my wallet.... but
> they're not going to get the legal system to support their claim.  Oh,
> wait, we live in a society where muggers are coddled because no one
> "understands" them. *I* understand them... they're too lazy to go to
> school, learn how to do something productive, and then labor in a job.
> Much like plantation owners who couldn't pick their own cotton.
>
> So should my grandchildren get to live off my model railroad creation?
> Yes, unless society through its legislatures, imposes a "take all"
> estate or similar tax.

This is again a societal norm. Americans tend to like some churn in their
elite, so we do this kind of thing. It's part of living here.

> It ought not be decided by outlaw renegade "do it
> yourself wealth redistribution entrepreneurs" (a fancy word for mugger,
> thief, embezzler, etc.). Sure, my grandchildren could be creative and
> make their own model railroad layout or whatever else suits them. And,
> just as well, these P2P activists can go and create their own music
> rather than stealing someone else's work.

Fair enough, but both sets of individuals will need enough incentive to create
in the first place. The current balance seems out of whack to a lot of people
when it comes to producing incentive on both sides.

> The idea that people come to visit and pay $10 because they want to
> expand on my work? Rubbish. They simply want to get in for free because
> they think they're "special" and don't need to abide by the rules that
> bind the rest of us.

But some portion of the people that walk through the door _will_ be inspired 
by
your work (if it's any good), and will do something different but related.
Perhaps building on it, perhaps mocking it, perhaps commenting on it's nature.
So whose inspiration is that? and are you suggesting that everyone who has
inspiration from your work pay you $10 in perpetuity in order for the premise 
of their creativity to be accessible enough to make sense to the receiver?
Also, are you saying that your grandkids should be saddled with the 
responsibility for keeping your idea alive for however long someone else
 finds it valuable? Who would wish that on their kids?


What you propose is the forced removal of shared experience through simple
economics. The owning of history.

There's also a fundamental difference between a barn and a song you can walk
through my barn and never take any part of it with you, but you cant hear my
idea or song and not at least have the capacity to "steal" it. Copyright,
patent, and trademark are therefore government endorsed "protection" of your
creation from what you consider to be abuse in a situation in which you would
otherwise have no recourse but not to create or share with others in the first
place. I.e., you can't guard a song with a shotgun, so you'll have to accept 
the terms of protection that society decides to extend to you. The debate
then is about the terms of the protection we collectively extend and what we
expect in return.

We make trade-offs here between what is good for the individual and what is 
good
for society. A good compromise will please neither side as much as they would
like. The framers explicitly made the "for limited times" clause both 
necessary for the grant of rights but also a term defined by Congress in
order to allow this debate to happen. It is up to us as a society to strike a
balance that provides the most benefit to everyone, not just the original 
content producer.

Want to give something to your kids? Turn your limited monopoly on your
creation into a gold mine while you're still alive and then give 'em a bundle
of cash. That's the upside for the producer in this bargain no one else can
take a cut that the producer doesn't explicitly allow while the producer's
rights are still in force. You get a limited *monopoly* in order to allow you
to make your own way in this world. The term of this monopoly is constrained
so that there is continued incentive for you (and your children and grandkids)
to continue to produce (which again, benefits society as well as you). I'm
sure this will devolve into an argument about how you can give someone 
rentable property, which will be neither apropops nor analagous, so let's not
go there.

What you seem to be arguing for isn't property rights, but perpetual thought
tax. The ability to introduce economic drag onto every creative thought that 
may be even secondarily related to your original work, seemingly forever. The
framers rejected this model explicitly by creating the public domain. The
public domain is not theft, it is our collective payment for giving you the
right to profit from your otherwise unguard-able creation for some amount of
time.

> So the underlying premise of the entire argument of the "we share other
> people's property' crowd makes no sense unless it is viewed as a "I want
> it, you have it, I'll find a way to take it." Hmmm.... sounds like
> several national leaders of the 30s in Europe and the Pacific Rim......

Remember, if reason fails and you can't attack your opponent's actual point,
accuse your opposition of being aligned with a set of repressive and monstrous
regimes that viciously destroyed lives without a second thought! 
Hmmm....sounds like a sitting administration in the worlds only superpower...

> So, they're "not consumers anymore." So what are they? Can we dare
> utter the words?

Sure!

"Citizens who expect the long-term benefit of the exclusive deal they've been
giving to content producers to be paid up in full."

Regards.

-- 
Alex Russell
alex@burstlib.net    BD10 7AFC 87F6 63F9 1691 83FA 9884 3A15 AFC9 61B7
alex@netWindows.org  F687 1964 1EF6 453E 9BD0 5148 A15D 1D43 AB92 9A46





Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 142902 -0700
Subject Re FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits
From "E. Miller" <subscriptionbox@squishymedia.com>
To James Maule <maule@law.villanova.edu>, <declan@well.com>


I think we could agree, then, that the law is the embodiment of how society
wishes to regulate itself.  Right?  That the law itself is a collective
good, owned by no one but acting as social capital for everyone.

It seems that the sticky area is the lag time between changing societal
mores and the formation of consensus about how those mores should be
reflected in law.

In the specific case of ownership of cultural production, there seem to be
three problems where existing law isn't coping well.  First, the fact that
we live in such an information- and content-rich society that everything is
effectively derivative from prior art.  We're living in remix culture, with
its habit of placing copyrighted works in the blender and hitting "puree",
putting us in an ambiguous area when it comes to assigning ownership of what
is in effect only semi-new content.  This isn't new; it's just extending the
concept of what is public and what is private to reflect usage.  Shakespeare
would have been in a world of hurt if English was patented and
licensed...but it wasn't, and he created something beautiful out of a
pre-existing shared community cultural good.  All we're seeing now is a
shifting definition of what is shared and what is owned.

Secondly, technology has radically changed the way content is created,
distributed and consumed...and the 19th century tradition of copyright
stemming from pirated Dickens novels hasn't provided enough of a conceptual
framework for, say, handling Negativland's work.

And lastly, the Disney Act extending copyright to, whatever, life + 70?  One
corporate entity buying a law that significantly changes society's rules for
collective management of cultural goods.  That's frickin' warped.

It's somewhat chicken-and-egg, isn't it?  Especially when law, built to deal
with property as finite and tangible goods, is suddenly expected to govern
intangible goods.  Like you said, it's a value judgment.  I guess I come
from the school of thought that says that sometimes the legal environment
needs an extracurricular kick in the a** in order to evolve and reflect
current society.  Otherwise, we'd probably all still be still under the
thumb of the King of England, the Brits would still be running India, and
African-Americans would still be disenfranchised and sitting on the back of
the bus.

Eric

PS touche on your point concerning your houseplants' generous contribution
to my oxygenated well-being...

On 09-09-2003 1138, "James Maule" <maule@law.villanova.edu> wrote

> If it is in my self-interest to kill you and in your self-interest to kill me,
> and if society's self-interest either doesn't care, or favors you, or me, we
> have a mess. What solves that problem is law... from Constitution through
> statute to regulation and judicial opinion. Whether or not we agree that there
> should be copyright protection that creates private property, that is a
> question separate and apart from the fact that our legal system does so
> provide. Likewise, perhaps we should communally own all property and not just
> the O2 that MY houseplants produce for you to breath <G>, but we don't have
> such a system (and attempts at doing that way haven't worked). So, as long as
> we have what we have, and even though we can lobby to change it, there's no
> excuse for a person deciding that in their self-interest they will take what
> belongs to another under the law, or that they will drive their Humvee through
> the red light through a crowd of pedestrians because their self-interest in
> getting somewhere quickly trumps the self-interest survival desires of the
> pedestrians. The law exists to resolve the conflicts among our individual and
> collective self-interests.
> 
> And, incidentally, I tried, diplomatically, to differentiate between the
> self-interest that is pursued within the law and the self-interest pursed
> outside the law. That I have a bias favoring the former and disrespecting the
> latter is a matter of values.
> 



Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 173549 -0400
From "James Maule" <maule@law.villanova.edu>
To <mike@techdirt.com>, <declan@well.com>
Subject Re FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA
	lawsuits
Mime-Version 1.0

Mike,

If you build a nicer better barn with a more attractive layout, you
don't charge admission, and you sell merchandise, you haven't stolen
from me. Ideas aren't subject to copyright. People will visit you (and
not me, if we assume a limit, because many would want to visit both). So
I need to do something to make mine more attactive. You're not a thief.
You didn't take my barn and layout.

An efficient marketplace isn't necessarily a legal one. Whether that's
a problem with law or human nature depends on whether one views human
nature as needing guidance from the law or as law simply reflecting the
human nature of those who get to say what the law is. The marketplace
correction that occurs when people refuse to buy something (and walk
away), or decide not to visit my barn and model railroad layout, is not
the same as a marketplace correction that arises from disregard of
legally protected rights. There are legally acceptable means of
correcting the music sales marketplace, though some may involve the same
sacrifice as that which is made by those who forego access to a service,
or a good, because they think it is overpriced. "I'm not paying $300 for
this dress" is accompanied by a search for another or a departure from
the store, without the dress.

That the technology permits multiple copies of the music to exist
appears to make a difference, but only if we compare the music to the
dress rather than to the dress design (the copywritten pattern). That's
the same reason the black market in "knock offs' is illegal it steals
the dressmaker's market. If you buy a song and sell it, as you suggest,
that's not infringement. The infringement occurs when you copy the song,
keep what you purchased, and pass the other on for compensation (whether
in the form of cash or a copy of another song). What is being sold by
the music publisher is a "good", namely a fixed representation or
manifestation of the work. The publisher retains the right to
manufacture or produce another fixed representation or manifestation to
sell to someone else (in competition with you selling to someone else at
a lower price the fixed representation or manifestation that you
purchased). When you create another fixed representation of the work to
sell to another, you are exercising a right that you do not own and did
not purchase.

Lastly, though technically copyright infringement is not "theft" as
used in the criminal law context, it is an illegal taking of someone
else's right. A society that does not protect legal rights becomes a
society no longer based on rule of law. Recall that most commercial law
grew out of the unregulated marketplaces that were becoming inefficient
because of the lack of rights protection... thus, marketplaces that are
unregulated by law (whether private law or governmentally imposed law
isn't the issue) become, in the long run, inefficient.






From "Roy M. Silvernail" <roy@rant-central.com>
Reply-To roy@rant-central.com
To declan@well.com
Subject Re FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits
Date Tue, 9 Sep 2003 174647 -0400
User-Agent KMail/1.5


Declan,

James Maule's response to the Hugh Prestwood/RIAA article is interesting, in 
that it comes from a Professor of Law. But of course, he has fallen for the 
same misguided illogic that the RIAA, et al, have spewed endlessly.

Prof. Maule conflates intellectual property with physical property, and 
through that conflation concludes that copyright infringement is directly 
equivalent to theft.  It's not all that surprising, given the RIAA and MPAA 
beat the 'Sharing Is Theft' drum more loudly each day.  I suppose they 
believe in the concept of Proof By Assertion, but it doesn't make them right.

Prof. Maule addresses the subject of copyright by analogizing to a tangible 
piece of real property, but the analogy is specious.  Of course no one is 
suggesting that the good Professor give free admission to his railroad 
exhibit.  To do so would deprive him of real property, in the form of income 
from allowing admission to his property.  That is theft.

The proper analogy would be to posit that because he has assembled a model 
railroad exhibit, that no one else may assemble a similar (or even 
substantially identical) exhibit, whether or not they charge admission.  The 
concept of a model railroad exhibit is intellectual property.  The 
realization of that intellectual property is Professor Maule's barn.

What the current Copyright Jihad seeks is to control each and every expression 
of an idea, and to extend the control of that expression into perpetuity.  
Even the original framers of copyright law recognized the problems with this.  
Witness the compulsory licensing provisions that specifically allow any 
artist to perform and record a song once it has been initially released.

Real property can be controlled in perpetuity because it is unique.  Ideas can 
be unique as well, but their expression can be shared without any loss of 
real property.  You and I can whistle the same tune, and neither one of us is 
deprived.  But given their way, the RIAA would charge both of us for 
whistling.


Subject Re FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits
From John <john.g.a.gardner@ntlworld.com>
To declan@well.com
Date 09 Sep 2003 230738 +0100


Jim appears to believe that there is an equivalence between a piece of
physical property and an idea (or other intellectual property.

It is relatively easy to demonstrate ownership of most physical
property, conversely almost all intellectual property is based on others
thoughts and ideas.

Ideas are built "standing on the shoulders of great men"  - almost all
art-forms function by reference to others. In the case of popular and
classical music I cannot think of an instance where there was not some
form of predecessor.  

Only if one could demonstrate either exclusive origination of all
components of a piece of music,or complete payment of all dues to the
originators of the earlier IP (and all of their dependents if the
argument is to be believed), would Jim's analogy stand.

John Gardner
UK



Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 161631 -0700
To "James Maule" <maule@law.villanova.edu>, <declan@well.com>
From Mike Masnick <mike@techdirt.com>
Subject Re FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits
In-Reply-To <sf5e0f8f.036@VLSMAIL1.law.villanova.edu>


<x-flowed>
James,

Thanks for the reasoned follow-up.  I think we're basically in agreement, 
actually.  Though, I do question the assumption you make that the market 
correction is due to disregard of legally protected rights.  I'd argue 
there are plenty of other factors - and in some cases, the crack down has 
done more to harm them than letting the infringement stand.  For instance, 
when Napster first launched and was still in a legal "gray area", I used it 
to discover many new bands.  I bought a bunch of CDs and saw bands that 
performed live.  Since it was declared illegal, I haven't used a file 
sharing service - though, I do download MP3s directly from bands that allow 
it.  In that time, I've pretty much stopped buying CDs from all but a few 
bands, simply because I no longer know what's out there.  To me, file 
sharing was a great way to learn about new artists - who I would then spend 
money on.  The lack of such a tool means I no longer know what's going 
on.  That's too bad for me, too bad for the bands I'm sure I'd like, and 
too bad for the music industry who has to watch my money go elsewhere.

My argument is that, as a business person, I don't want my business model 
dependent on something as out of my control as the whims of lawmakers and 
lobbyists.  It's my job to build a business that succeeds no matter what.

If I'm working in the music industry, I would be doing everything possible 
to create a business model that didn't depend on copyright laws to 
enforce.  That way, everyone is better off.  The record industry claims 
they can't come up with a business model that keeps them in business, but 
they're just buggy makers who can't figure out they're in the 
transportation business and not the buggy making business.

You may claim that copyrights are due to inefficient marketplaces, but you 
shouldn't assume all open marketplaces are inefficient.  It may be a 
function of time and technology - and the times have changed since our 
original intellectual property laws were put in place.  You have to look at 
the actual market place and right now the legalized monopoly on music seems 
a hell of a lot more inefficient than opening up the music as free content 
and building smarter businesses on top of that.

Mike





Date Wed, 10 Sep 2003 095756 +1000
From Moz <lists@moz.co.nz>
X-Mailer The Bat! (v1.62r) Personal
Reply-To Moz <lists@moz.co.nz>
 
James Maul wrote
> So, If I build a barn-like structure with my own hands, and then
> build a huge model railroad display inside, and then invite the
> public to visit for $10 a visit per person, why should I, after some
> short period of time, let people in for free?

You're confusing property rights with intellectual property here. In
most legal systems it's your barn, so you have the right to exclude
most people from it. What you don't have is the right to stop someone
paying the fee, then going home and building a similar model railway
in their barn. You can possibly get a limited ability to stop that via
patent or copyright law, and a question is how long that ability
should last.

On the one side is the RIAA saying that this special ability should be
perpetual, on the other is a variety of groups saying that a shorter,
fixed period would be more reasonable. There is also a group saying
that obviously the whole notion of intellectual property is broken so
it should be discarded.

The key difference is in what happens when the "property" is stolen.
If your barn is stolen, you no longer have a barn. But if your idea
for the model railway is stolen, you still have the railway. The RIAA
argument that you thereby lose part of the income stream, so that must
have been "stolen" too, requires a leap into consequential losses.

On a policy level, the question is where will music come from, if the
RIAA is not there? Phrased that way the question is absurd, but it
does seem to be the argument.

The internet is affecting music in two ways people can now download
music directly, and share the music that they have. But the musicians
can also more easily sell directly to listeners. The internet now
makes it trivial to do what previously required a large investment in
a physical structure set up a store and accept payments. Today, for a
tiny sum, I can set up an online store and accept instant credit card
payments.

This leaves the RIAA claiming that no-one will produce and promote
global rock stars if they don't. I argue that the evidence suggests a
declining market for global rock stars, as reflected in the movement
of album sales from them to local artists.

Addressing that issue, I'd like to see figures on the money flowing
into online and direct-sale music. But that question is hard to
answer, as the money flow is now very decentralised. I have bought
music directly from artists both online and at performances, bought
via label sites and downloaded "shareware" tracks and paid for them.
Payment methods range from direct deposit into a bank account to third
party credit card services like 2checkout.com. Tracking those flows is
very, very hard to do.

My suggestion is that those out-of-band flows are growing rapidly, and
will continue to do so, and the former middlemen will continue to
suffer.

From "JayHolovacs" <holovacs@1st.net>
To <declan@well.com>, <politech@politechbot.com>
References <6.0.0.22.2.20030909114510.01f48af0@mail.well.com>
Subject Re Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits
Date Tue, 9 Sep 2003 195810 -0400

There is an old saying, 'yesterday's home runs don't win today's ballgame'.
Surgeons, lawyers, atheletes, and LIVE musicians (who put far more of
themselves into a life on the road than do people doing a studio set) don't
continue to get paid for a performance long after it's done. You want to eat
tomorrow, you have to perform tomorrow. That's life.

One measure of the effectiveness of a law is how closely it natural actions.
Protection of physical possessions is relatively straightforward, easily
grasped by virtually any culture in the world. By contrast, ideas, poems,
stories, songs, have from time immemorial simply spread. As long as it's in
your mind alone, it's yours. The moment you extend it to other minds, you no
longer have real control over it, thoughts belong to the world. It's only an
artifact of our civilization (which we try to force onto others) to try to
have it both ways, spread the idea and simultaneously keep control of it.
Now there is no natural way to do that (unlike protecting one's possessions
which is conceptually plain) so we have contrived this highly artificial
mechanism, enforcing a kind of 'thought control'  through the force of the
state. It's that disconnect that should alert us to the fact that this
attempt to control ideas is a losing battle, or at least a battle that
should be lost.

Jay



From Kelly Gray <gray@mygate.dhs.org>
To declan@well.com
Subject Re FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits
Date Tue, 9 Sep 2003 205415 -0400

I have to disagree with James Maule's comentary on copyrights. His analogy is 
badly flawed because he misses the difference between physical property and 
"intellectual property". The difference is that having someone else use your 
ideas does not deprive you of the use of those ideas.

> So, If I build a barn-like structure with my own hands, and then build
> a huge model railroad display inside, and then invite the public to
> visit for $10 a visit per person, why should I, after some short period
> of time, let people in for free? Why can I not pass that building and
> display on to my kids when I die, giving them something for which they
> can charge admission? Under current law, the property right (created by
> my physical efforts and the creativity of how I designed the layout and
> its accessories) is eternal. (Sure, I'll pay taxes to repay society for
> the burden my property puts on the environment, for police protection,
> etc..... just as creative artists pay taxes).
 
	To use your model railroad analogy more correctly,  you want the ability to 
prevent me from paying to visit the display, and then going home and creating 
my own display identical in every respect.  Having the display go into the 
public domain would mean that I would be able to create my own display and 
charge admission to those who wanted to see it. The competition might result 
in a lower income, but would not take the original display away from you.
	What's more, you also want the ability to prevent me from photographing your 
display, and then using the photographs to illustrate a book on how to create 
a model railroad. Such a book would not interfere with your income from the 
display at all.

> But if I were to write a song or make a movie about my model layout you
> want yourself (or others) to have access to it for free, at least after
> some short period of time? I'd sue someone who breaks in or tries to
> enter without paying, and the fact that the person is a "fan" of my
> railroad layout doesn't matter. Muggers are "fans" of my wallet.... but
> they're not going to get the legal system to support their claim. Oh,
> wait, we live in a society where muggers are coddled because no one
> "understands" them. *I* understand them... they're too lazy to go to
> school, learn how to do something productive, and then labor in a job.
> Much like plantation owners who couldn't pick their own cotton.

Once again, the confusion of physical property vs ideas.  Only one person can 
use a physical object at any one time, so it's only fair for the owner of 
that object being the one to decide who gets to use it. On the other hand, 
ideas can be used by an unlimited number of people simultaneously.  I don't 
see much fairness in restricting an unlimited resource to a select few merely 
because they happen to be related to the person who stumbled across it first.

> So should my grandchildren get to live off my model railroad creation?
> Yes, unless society through its legislatures, imposes a "take all"
> estate or similar tax. It ought not be decided by outlaw renegade "do it
> yourself wealth redistribution entrepreneurs" (a fancy word for mugger,
> thief, embezzler, etc.). Sure, my grandchildren could be creative and
> make their own model railroad layout or whatever else suits them. And,
> just as well, these P2P activists can go and create their own music
> rather than stealing someone else's work.

Ahh, but you see, I can't go and create my own music. Not because I lack the 
talent, but because perpetual copyrights have made it impossible for me to 
learn music by studying, i.e. playing, the music of those musicians who have 
come before me. What's more, even if I do manage to learn to play somehow, I 
still face a legal minefield in trying to prove that I didn't subconsciously 
copy a few bars of music from a song I may have heard years before.

>
> The idea that people come to visit and pay $10 because they want to
> expand on my work? Rubbish. They simply want to get in for free because
> they think they're "special" and don't need to abide by the rules that
> bind the rest of us. They're like folks who go straight from the left
> turn lane... and the fact more and more people act so idiotically is
> nothing more but proof that a few bad apples in the barrel, if permitted
> to remain, spoil the rest.

	Perhaps it's not the people that are wrong, but the rules? Just because a law 
has made it onto the books does not make it a good law. There are many laws 
passed more because politicians were convinced to accept them than because of 
the benefits of the law. In the case of the recording industry, they seem to 
have a history of price fixing, monopolistic restraint of trade, and using 
political influence to have laws rewritten to favour them.
	When you look at laws in general, they're really only a codified view of what 
we as a society see are the limits of acceptable behavior. If a large part of 
society considers violating a particular law to be acceptable, then perhaps 
the law should be rewritten to more closely conform to the view of society. 
At one time slavery was considered acceptable, and the laws reflected that. 
When society's attitude changed, so did the laws. The changes in the law were 
caused by the change in society, not the other way around. At the present 
time, society seems to be indicating that a change is needed in the copyright 
laws, and indeed in all the "intellectual property" laws.


Kelly Gray
	






From "kawaii ryuko" <trunks@stackers.org>
To <declan@well.com>
References <6.0.0.22.2.20030909114510.01f48af0@mail.well.com>
Subject Re Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits
Date Tue, 9 Sep 2003 210055 -0400

I don't know if Jim's defense is even applicable.

Let's go with his scenerio

He has built a barn and a railroad display. I pay $10, walk in, and gasp at
the display. I think it is really good. I then leave, and build my own
railroad display, which in this case, is identical to Jim's display. I let
people look at it for free.

Jim's argument is as such

> So, If I build a barn-like structure with my own hands, and then build
> a huge model railroad display inside, and then invite the public to
> visit for $10 a visit per person, why should I, after some short period
> of time, let people in for free?

I say that Jim is under no obligation to allow people in for free, but if I
choose to build a replica on my personal property, am I under any obligation
to charge the same price as Jim? or to charge any price at all?

> But if I were to write a song or make a movie about my model layout you
> want yourself (or others) to have access to it for free, at least after
> some short period of time? I'd sue someone who breaks in or tries to
> enter without paying, and the fact that the person is a "fan" of my
> railroad layout doesn't matter.

And if I were to duplicate the song or movie? Because that's what the crux
of the issue is, distribution and duplication. Theft is somehow an
inadequate word for the digital medium, because mugging and other such crime
is depriving the owner of the object in question. When someone 'steals'
music, the original artist is not prevented from touring, nor is the artist
prevented from otherwise 'using' the music.

I don't believe that music piracy can be described using analogies with any
tangible good and the related theft of said good, simply because this isn't
a case of someone shoplifting a CD from a store.

I don't even think the RIAA is too concerned with the theft. People have
been making mix tapes for years. It is the wide-spread distribution that
they have a problem with - and if I understand the recording industry's
break down properly, it would seem that the things that allow an artist (not
necessarily a song writer) to make the most money (touring, merchandise,
etc) are still available to the artist, despite the 'theft'. The only people
who are losing big when music is free digitally is the recording industry
middle-man, and that is why they are so virulent in their attacks against
file-sharers.

Ever lovable and always scrappy,
kawaii







From jason <jaegner@mindspring.com>
To Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Cc maule@law.villanova.edu
In-Reply-To <6.0.0.22.2.20030909114510.01f48af0@mail.well.com>
References <6.0.0.22.2.20030909114510.01f48af0@mail.well.com>

I'd like to answer Professor Maule's last question first, as I believe
it might shed more light on the rest of my reply

"So, they're 'not consumers anymore.' So what are they? Can we dare
utter the words?"

--  Yes, sir...I believe it's safe to utter the words  discerning,
informed customers.

"I don't get the gist of Jason's complaint. Actually, I do.... and it is
troubling."

--  I'm sure that my opinion is "troubling" to someone that is more
familiar with tax law and the IRS than constitutional law and the PTO
but I think that's a good thing in this debate because I'm not trying to
defend people that infringe copyrights any more than I am supporting the
illogical approach being adopted by those who support "intellectual
property".

In the interests of brevity, I won't quote Prof. Maule's points.  I
simply question his analogy.  Physical property is just that 
physical.  You buy the land, build your barn, erect your display and do
whatever you want with it.  That's physical...tangible.  Of course it's
logical that your heirs should inherit that work.

What I can't agree with is the mapping of "intellectual property" onto
physical property in our society.  Let's be honest here  There is no
such thing as "intellectual property".  Copyright, patent, and trademark
laws create an _artificial_ monopoly.  I find it hard to believe that a
professor of law at Villanova has never read the words of Thomas
Jefferson when he said

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of
exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an
idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it
to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the
possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of
it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less,
because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea
from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who
lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."

In the economy of ideas, the public is the ruling body and given the
power and decentralization of the Internet, those whose business model
relies upon the control of information need to figure out another way to
do business.  I don't imagine it will be easy and (as the RIAA is
proving daily) it certainly won't be painless.  I simply believe it is
inevitable.

Regarding the RIAA, I await proof that "pirates", and not their own
reduced production schedule, are to blame for their profit loss.

I do of course retain the utmost respect for Professor Maule and should
the IRS ever knock on my door, it is my sincere hope that he will forget
we ever had this discussion.  )

--Jason


 



Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 215132 -0400
From "James Maule" <maule@law.villanova.edu>
To <jaegner@mindspring.com>, <declan@well.com>
Subject Re FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA
	lawsuits

Jason,

Whatever Jefferson has said, the Constitution gives Congress the power
to give copyright protection to the fixed forms of ideas. It is the
fixed manifestation and the right to copy it that is protected, not the
idea or the thought. Hopefully Declan will post this so that the
discussion can re-focus on the point I think you made and that I think
you made again (in your suggestion that the pirates aren't the cause of
revenue loss and in your point concerning the burden on the owners of
information to invent new business models).

When the law grants a right, whether in title to real property or the
right to copy, it is a violation of that law to act, without permission
and without privilege, in a manner that denigrates those rights. In this
regard, it makes no difference whether a right attaches to physical
property or the manifestation in physical or digital form of an idea or
the intangible "right" to own real property or to copy or fix an idea.
The specifics of remedies, proof, and procedure may vary, but an
intrusion on a right is an intrusion whatever the right.

I am not arguing for a perpetual copyright, as my careless articulation
in my original posts seems to say. I corrected that in a followup. 

Nor am I arguing that the term provided under existing law necessarily
is the best, or ideal, or good for business or the economy. But I do
argue that just because a person does not agree with a law is not in and
of itself justication to ignore it.

The notion that the owners of copy rights need to rethink their
business model because modern technology has made it easier for pirates
to steal the profits flowing from the right to make copies (and that
their failure to do so excuses the theft) is like saying that the
creation of better lock picking tools means that those who don't change
their security system excuses the thieves. This is a natural consequence
of the "blame the victim" mentality that permeates our culture. Sure,
some copyright owners have exploited artists and consumers. That's not
enough to sanction P2P schemes that infringe on all sorts of artists,
publishers and copyright owners (many of whom are not big Disneys).

How you can suggest that file swappers aren't eating into CD sales
boggles me. Who has to prove what is a different matter, and yes, the
burden is on the RIAA. That the decline in sales matches the growth in
the Internet and P2P and other file sharing schemes isn't a coincidence.
No one believes that in the absence of the technology the swappers would
not have purchased CDs.

So I'd be happy to hear you say that you think the file swappers are
violating the law and violating the copyrights. And then say you
understand why they do that although you don't think that makes it
right. Then we'd be fairly close to having the same position. If that is
what you are saying, then I apologize for mis-interpreting your earlier
post and this one.

Jim



From "Geoff Gariepy" <geoff_gariepy@hotmail.com>
To <declan@well.com>
Cc <maule@law.villanova.edu>
References <6.0.0.22.2.20030909114510.01f48af0@mail.well.com>
Subject Re Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits
Date Tue, 9 Sep 2003 234632 -0400
MIME-Version 1.0


Declan,
One thing's for sure, James can write a convincing argument, and he's got
the balls to put it out there.  I think he's right on.

--Geoff




Date Wed, 10 Sep 2003 113255 +0200
To declan@well.com
Subject Re FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits
References <6.0.0.22.2.20030909114510.01f48af0@mail.well.com>
From Alf Kre Lefdal <aklefdal@online.no>
Content-Type text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1
MIME-Version 1.0


Declan,

Property and ideas are different.  If I wanted to build a copy of his 
barn, together with a huge model railroad display, then that would be 
fine!  He doesn't have the copyright of his property.  Why should I pay 
for entrance to his barn, when I can build my own for free?

Alf


Alf Kre Lefdal
<http//home.online.no/~aklefdal/>


Content-Type text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed
From Andrew Steingruebl <steingra@earthlink.net>
MIME-Version 1.0
Date Wed, 10 Sep 2003 070512 -0500


<x-flowed>
Is it just me, or this essentially an agument against fair-use overall. 
That is, a rejection of copyright law and the balances it strikes.

Not sure if that was the intent, but are we seriously still having that 
debate, especially with a lawyer?

- Andy Steingruebl




From "George, Paul" <PCGeorge@BBandT.com>
To "'declan@well.com'" <declan@well.com>
Subject RE Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits
Date Wed, 10 Sep 2003 105003 -0400

I presume our learned colleague is aware that intellectual property is a
rather new concept in the law and is arguing that it shouldn't be treated
any differently than physical property. The practical reason is that such an
approach stifles civilization. I drift slightly into the areas of copyright
and patent in this argument.

To use James Maule's analogy, the issue is not my viewing his display for
free, but rather, per the DMCA
 - restricting my ability to build a copy of his display, having paid
admission to see it.
 - restricting my ability to make a drawing/diagram or take a photo of his
display
 - restricting my ability to build an identical or similar display and
charge admission.
 - restricting my ability to buy or sell model train components lest I
enable building such a display (possibly a stretch).
 - restricting my ability to buy or sell locksmithing or keymaking equipment
on the grounds that it's primary purpose is to open locks such as those on
his barn.

The growth of culture and technology is based upon it's spread. It has not
been held historically that a composer such as Handel, or more currently the
patron that commissioned the work ('work for hire'), should be able to
restrict how the work could be played or by whom, nor that the score should
be not distributed to enable such playing. The copying mechanism of the work
is human memory. If it had we would probably have no classical music today.
OTOH that is why artists have historically needed patrons and were often
destitute.

What would happen if no one could play an old blues or folk tune without
buying the rights, or indeed if the distinctive pattern of a blues song were
copyrighted or patented (e.g. Disney copyrights of cartoon characters)? 
What about a 'theme and variations' composition using someone else's theme? 
I argue the development of music would be stifled.

If I visiting a different area and saw a better way of building something it
would be traditional to bring that idea back to my own country or town and
use it to improve our lives as well. This kind of 'stealing' is the basis of
civilization. 

Thought experiments

- the catholic church copyrighted the bible, and banned the printing press
and movable type on the grounds that it's primary purpose was the
unauthorized reproduction of a copyrighted work. 

- the concept of the printing press and movable type received a permanent
patent, which the owner declines to license.

I'll argue that providing a title to intellectual property over time would
cause all areas of human expression would become owned by those who have a
'dog in the manger' interest in seeing no one else make a profit using their
property, even if they aren't. Everything is to some extent a derivative
work. If all 'prior art' is owned, then.....




From "Derek Scruggs" <derek@scruggs.net>
To <declan@well.com>
Subject RE Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA lawsuits
Date Wed, 10 Sep 2003 092512 -0600

> So, If I build a barn-like structure with my own hands, and 
> then build a huge model railroad display inside, and then 
> invite the public to visit for $10 a visit per person, why 
> should I, after some short period of time, let people in for 
> free? 

I don't necessarily support file sharing, but this is a straw man. This is
an example of real property. Recorded music is intellectual property. The
difference between them is great enough to have been specifically singled
out in the Constitution. If you want them to equate, launch an effort to
amend the Constitution.

-Derek


Escalan, LLC
Smart marketing. Measurable results.
http//i.escalan.com/cts/home
303-543-1186 phone
303-808-6614 cell
425-920-6124 fax


Date Wed, 10 Sep 2003 092307 -0700
From Eric Lee Green <eric@badtux.org>
User-Agent Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv1.4) Gecko/20030624
X-Accept-Language en-us, en
MIME-Version 1.0
To declan@well.com, maule@law.villanova.edu

<x-flowed>
From "James Maule" <maule@law.villanova.edu>

> So, If I build a barn-like structure with my own hands, and then build
> a huge model railroad display inside, and then invite the public to
> visit for $10 a visit per person, why should I, after some short period
> of time, let people in for free?

So if I buy a CD-ROM with music on it, why should I not have the right 
to do anything I wish with the property that I just purchased? Including 
play it in public, share it with my friends, whatever?

Mr. Maule is using an intellectually dishonest argument typical of the 
RIAA storm troopers He is confusing  the boundary between an idea and 
its instantiation. Ideas are not owned.  All that is granted by our 
Constitution is a limited monopoly on use of an idea, in order to give 
people an incentive to express said idea onto a physical media such as 
paper or, yes, a model railroad display. But note that the actual 
physical object -- the model railroad display -- is property. The idea 
of a model railroad display, on the other hand, is *not* property, but 
at best something to which our Constitution gives limited "copy right".

> Why can I not pass that building and
> display on to my kids when I die, giving them something for which they
> can charge admission? 

Why should I pay money to you if I want to build a model railroad 
display that's exactly like yours? That's what copy right is all about 
-- the right to copy your model railroad layout and build one exactly 
like it in my backyard. Why should you have a government-enforced 
monopoly on all model railroad displays that are built like yours, 
forever? You're using government to keep me from going into business 
competing with you! 

> Under current law, the property right (created by
> my physical efforts and the creativity of how I designed the layout and
> its accessories) is eternal. 

But we're not talking about property rights. We're talking about copy 
rights -- the right to make our own copy of your display, using our own 
materials on our own property. Copy rights were originally conceived as 
a limited government monopoly to encourage people to express their ideas 
in innovative ways by giving them a monopoly on making copies. The only 
thing that has changed is that it is now easier for me to make my own 
copy. But there is no God-given right for you to keep me from making a 
display built like yours, or a musical composition that uses the same 
aureal elements as yours. This is entirely an artificial 
government-created restriction on what I, as a free man, can do with my 
own property. Again, I ask why should you be able to use government to 
tell me what I can do with my property, forever? Why should you have an 
eternal right to keep me from making model railroad layouts identical to 
yours? You're using government to tell me what I can do with my own 
materials, my own labor, my own property!

> But if I were to write a song or make a movie about my model layout you
> want yourself (or others) to have access to it for free, at least after
> some short period of time? 

 No, I do say that you should not be able to tell me what I can do with 
my OWN materials and my OWN property after a certain period of time. If 
I bring a tape recorder to your concert, the recorder and tape are my 
own property. Now, because it is in the public interest to encourage
you to create songs, government has wisely granted you the right to tell 
me what I can do with my recorder and tape for some limited amount of 
time. I.e., you have the copy right, I don't, so I cannot use my 
materials and my labor to build a copy of your song. But should this 
government-granted restriction on what I can do with my materials and my 
labor apply *forever*?!

> So should my grandchildren get to live off my model railroad creation? 

Should your grandchildren have the right to use the power of government 
to tell me that I cannot build my own model railroad creation, 
identicial to yours, next door to yours? That's what copy right does. It 
keeps me from using my materials, my labor, to build a model railroad 
creation identical to yours. It restricts what I can do with my 
materials and labor, on my property, in order to enrich you. There is a 
good reason for this -- it gives you an incentive to create an 
innovative model railroad creation. But should your grandchildren also 
have that monopoly?!

> The idea that people come to visit and pay $10 because they want to
> expand on my work? Rubbish. They simply want to get in for free because
> they think they're "special" and don't need to abide by the rules that
> bind the rest of us. They're like folks who go straight from the left
> turn lane... and the fact more and more people act so idiotically is
> nothing more but proof that a few bad apples in the barrel, if permitted
> to remain, spoil the rest. 

The idea that you, your children, and your grandchildren should have the 
right to tell me that I cannot build a model railroad display identical 
to yours, using my own property, my own materials, my own labor, because 
you have some sort of God-given right to use government to keep me from 
competing with you? Rubbish! You aren't going to get out of this by your 
usual RIAA tactics of confusing people about an artificially granted 
government monopoly, implying that an artificial monopoly (the right to 
create model railroad displays identical to yours) is the same as the 
property itself (the model railroad display). That's just an attempt to 
trick and deceive people. It is intellectually dishonest, and utter rubbish.
 
The fact of the matter is that if I offered a song (written by you) for 
download, it is identical to the situation of where I bought the 
property next door to you and built a model railroad display exactly 
identical to yours. You still own your own model railroad display. I 
have not taken that away from you. All I have done is gone into 
competition with you, using my own materials and my own computer and my 
own time. Now, government has wisely detirmined that if I could just rip 
off your own ideas and use them to go into competition with you,  you 
would have little incentive to build your model railroad display. So 
government gave you an artificial monopoly, which I violate if I go into 
business against you using ideas identical to yours. But trying to 
confuse people by saying that competing with you is the same thing as 
stealing from you and thus you should have the right to use government 
power to tell me what I can do, forever, with my time and my materials 
and my computer, is the sort of socialist big-brother nonsense that I'd 
expect from some Communist, not from someone who (since he reads 
Politech) who supposedly supports free-market economic solutions. It is 
not only intellectually dishonest. It is a *LIE*, and that's what 
irritates me the most -- I despise liars, and when I see a bunch of 
liars getting away with telling outright lies, I get irritated and ornery.

- Eric Lee Green    mailtoeric@badtux.org




Date Wed, 10 Sep 2003 142117 -0400
From "James Maule" <Maule@law.villanova.edu>
To <eric@badtux.org>, <declan@well.com>
Subject Re FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA
	lawsuits


>>> Eric Lee Green <eric@badtux.org> 9/10/2003 122307 PM >>>

So if I buy a CD-ROM with music on it, why should I not have the right

to do anything I wish with the property that I just purchased?
Including 
play it in public, share it with my friends, whatever?

JEM You cannot make copies and transfer them for value during the
period that the law protects the copy-right of the owner. So, no, you
cannot do "whatever."

Mr. Maule is using an intellectually dishonest argument typical of the

RIAA storm troopers He is confusing  the boundary between an idea and

its instantiation. Ideas are not owned. 

JEM No, I am not confusing the boundary. If A records a song about
flowers, you can record and distribute a song about flowers. But you
cannot take A's song (without permission) and copy it in order to sell
those copies. I addressed the treatment of copies of the instantiation,
not the idea.

Why should I pay money to you if I want to build a model railroad 
display that's exactly like yours? That's what copy right is all about

-- the right to copy your model railroad layout and build one exactly 
like it in my backyard. Why should you have a government-enforced 
monopoly on all model railroad displays that are built like yours, 
forever? You're using government to keep me from going into business 
competing with you! 

JEM You can imitate me, but you cannot use a holographic duplication
electron beam transmitter to make copies of my property. You can go buy
your own stuff and try to copy mine, but I can prohibit you from
filming, photographing or otherwise taking notes of my layout while you
are in my barn. That means it is unlikely you will produce an exact copy
of my layout. You may improve on it, and thus cause me to improve mine.
That's fine. That is very different from making an exact copy,
digitally, of a work in which someone else has a copy-right, and taking
their limited-term monopoly away from them without permission by selling
to their would-be customers the illegally generated copy that you have
made.

But there is no God-given right for you to keep me from making a 
display built like yours, or a musical composition that uses the same 
aureal elements as yours. This is entirely an artificial 
government-created restriction on what I, as a free man, can do with my

own property. Again, I ask why should you be able to use government to

tell me what I can do with my property, forever? Why should you have an

eternal right to keep me from making model railroad layouts identical
to 
yours? You're using government to tell me what I can do with my own 
materials, my own labor, my own property!

JEM See above, where I explain the blurring you make between imitation
and copying. Looking at my layout and trying to reconstruct it from
memory is NOT the same as generating a precise copy. When the
holographic duplication electron beam transmitter gets invented we'll
have quite a discussion, won't we, about your copying my railroad barn
and layout. (But we'll probably be too busy making copies of celebrities
and money to worry about barns and railroads).

If  I bring a tape recorder to your concert, the recorder and tape are
my 
own property. Now, because it is in the public interest to encourage
you to create songs, government has wisely granted you the right to
tell 
me what I can do with my recorder and tape for some limited amount of 
time. I.e., you have the copy right, I don't, so I cannot use my 
materials and my labor to build a copy of your song. But should this 
government-granted restriction on what I can do with my materials and
my 
labor apply *forever*?!

JEM No, and I clarified that in a follow-up posting which no one seems
to have seen (though it did reach me by e-mail) and which I do not see
on the politechbot.com web site. But, until the term expires, no, you
cannot make copies of my song to sell for gain.

Should your grandchildren have the right to use the power of government

to tell me that I cannot build my own model railroad creation, 
identicial to yours, next door to yours? That's what copy right does.
It 
keeps me from using my materials, my labor, to build a model railroad 
creation identical to yours. It restricts what I can do with my 
materials and labor, on my property, in order to enrich you. There is a

good reason for this -- it gives you an incentive to create an 
innovative model railroad creation. But should your grandchildren also

have that monopoly?!

JEM Actually, if you take your brain, your ideas, your materials and
create a layout identical to mine, you have NOT violated the copy right
(assuming there was one in a model train layout) because you have not
COPIED. So the seeming restriction on your use of your brain and your
materials isn't nowhere as tight as you suggest.

The idea that you, your children, and your grandchildren should have
the 
right to tell me that I cannot build a model railroad display identical

to yours, using my own property, my own materials, my own labor,
because 
you have some sort of God-given right to use government to keep me from

competing with you? Rubbish! You aren't going to get out of this by
your 
usual RIAA tactics of confusing people about an artificially granted 
government monopoly, implying that an artificial monopoly (the right to

create model railroad displays identical to yours) is the same as the 
property itself (the model railroad display). That's just an attempt to

trick and deceive people. It is intellectually dishonest, and utter
rubbish.

JEM Whether there should be a monopoly is a different issue (and if
one didn't exist, it would curtail creativity... why work if there's no
way to be compensated?). But the monopoly does exist and requires
respect. The monopoly is real, not artificial. It exists. The right to
create is different from the right to copy. The discussion is a focus on
pirates who copy when the law says they have no right to do so. Period.
Claiming that the law is stupid or makes someone's life less than ideal
is no defense.  Pirates aren't "creating" based on imitation... they are
flat out copying. Period.
 
The fact of the matter is that if I offered a song (written by you) for

download, it is identical to the situation of where I bought the 
property next door to you and built a model railroad display exactly 
identical to yours.

JEM Not at all. I write a song, and I own the right to copy it. There
is no copy right in the model train layout (and to those who pointed
that out, sure, I understand that). So you can try to imitate me and
make a replica of my layout but the odds are you'll not have a precise
copy (or even come close). You have no right to make copies of the song
as to which I have exclusive copy rights. By doing so you infringe on my
rights. If you transfer the copy for value, you clearly are diverting my
income from me to some other place. It is an illegal taking.

 But trying to confuse people by saying that competing with you is the
same thing as 
stealing from you and thus you should have the right to use government

power to tell me what I can do, forever, with my time and my materials

and my computer, is the sort of socialist big-brother nonsense that I'd

expect from some Communist, not from someone who (since he reads 
Politech) who supposedly supports free-market economic solutions.

JEM Competing with me by using rights that you steal from me is not
merely competing with me. It is stealing, followed by competition, and
the subsequent competition does not absolve the theft. Use your own
ideas, or use something you create influenced by my ideas, but don't
copy the precise manifestation of my idea and then sell it as though it
were yours. A non-socialist, free market advocate such as myself
understands that "free" in market does not mean "free for all, bully
thieves are the winners" but "free" as unregulated except to the extent
the market must be regulated in order to exist. (A free but dead market
is not a market). Otherwise, "free market" would mean anything in the
market I can grab/download for free is mine.

 It is not only intellectually dishonest. It is a *LIE*, and that's
what 
irritates me the most -- I despise liars, and when I see a bunch of 
liars getting away with telling outright lies, I get irritated and
ornery.

JEM It is not a lie. It is an interpretation of law that generates a
result you don't like. No one has yet provided a basis for concluding
that file swappers aren't violating copyright law. I've heard some
interesting arguments of sympathy, in which folks have shared why they
"understand" what motivates file swappers (just as one can understand
what motivates other law breakers (sometimes)). All this discussion of
what the copyright law SHOULD be doesn't change what it is, nor does it
give justification for seeking change through the legal process. I just
had an off-list exchange with someone who explained that his goal is to
see the middleman eliminated. I proposed setting up a competing Internet
music distribution system in which the artists signed contracts with
what would be an Internet-based music publisher. THAT is legal, barring
interference with existing contracts, that would reduce the cost of
distributed music, and that might catch on. But it takes effort,
creativity, and time, which is what the file swappers don't need to
invest when they simply take what belongs to another.


Jim Maule
Professor of Law, Villanova University School of Law
Villanova PA 19085
maule@law.villanova.edu
http//vls.law.vill.edu/prof/maule
President, TaxJEM Inc (computer assisted tax law instruction)
(www.taxjem.com)
Publisher, JEMBook Publishing Co. (www.jembook.com)
Owner/Developer, TaxCruncherPro (www.taxcruncherpro.com)
Maule Family Archivist & Genealogist (www.maulefamily.com)







Date Wed, 10 Sep 2003 121132 -0700
From James Ausman <ausman@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>

>So, If I build a barn-like structure with my own hands, and then build
>a huge model railroad display inside, and then invite the public to
>visit for $10 a visit per person, why should I, after some short period
>of time, let people in for free? Why can I not pass that building and
>display on to my kids when I die, giving them something for which they
>can charge admission? Under current law, the property right (created by
>my physical efforts and the creativity of how I designed the layout and
>its accessories) is eternal. (Sure, I'll pay taxes to repay society for
>the burden my property puts on the environment, for police protection,
>etc..... just as creative artists pay taxes).

But of the course the fundamental difference is that an idea is not
property. Property rights protect property, you know, that real
physical thing that you can touch with your hands and exists in
only limited quantities. If someone takes your model train set, you
are without a model train set. You have lost and they have gained.
If someone copies a song that you "own" you both have copies. Nothing
has been lost, only gained.

>But if I were to write a song or make a movie about my model layout you
>want yourself (or others) to have access to it for free, at least after
>some short period of time? I'd sue someone who breaks in or tries to
>enter without paying, and the fact that the person is a "fan" of my
>railroad layout doesn't matter. Muggers are "fans" of my wallet.... but
>they're not going to get the legal system to support their claim. Oh,
>wait, we live in a society where muggers are coddled because no one
>"understands" them. *I* understand them... they're too lazy to go to
>school, learn how to do something productive, and then labor in a job.
>Much like plantation owners who couldn't pick their own cotton.

No, not like plantation owners. Not like muggers. Only a lawyer could
confuse the real world, with its tangable objects, with the crazy
attempt to map Intellectual Property laws to the world of ideas. Ideas
are not tangable objects and no one "owns" them. Guess what? People
created songs and invented things before the notion of Intellectual
Property came along. Society decided it was in our collective best
interest to create patent laws to encourage creativity. They are
not inherent qualities and attempts by people like you to transfer
the rules regarding actual real property to the "intellectual property"
world are only going to make you look more and more foolish and are
already leading to the inevitable backlash. No matter how much you
try to pretend that an idea is "property," it is not, and you will
convince no one, but the gullible.

>So should my grandchildren get to live off my model railroad creation?
>Yes, unless society through its legislatures, imposes a "take all"
>estate or similar tax. It ought not be decided by outlaw renegade "do it
>yourself wealth redistribution entrepreneurs" (a fancy word for mugger,
>thief, embezzler, etc.). Sure, my grandchildren could be creative and
>make their own model railroad layout or whatever else suits them. And,
>just as well, these P2P activists can go and create their own music
>rather than stealing someone else's work.

The laws creating the ownership of ideas was designed to encourage
creativity and to reward creators for their own work. Allowing this
to be passed on discourages creativity. Why should your children
create anything when they can just live off the work of their ancestors?
What a terrible precident. Your vision leads to a world where every
invention, every innovation, every piece of entertainment is held by
a few, instead of the commonweal of humanity. They can withold as
they see fit or charge as much as they like, impoverishing any who
cannot afford the fee. The intellectual and creative output of mankind
is our birthright, not some thing to be bartered and sold.

Cheers,
Jim Ausman







Date Wed, 10 Sep 2003 153430 -0400
From "James Maule" <Maule@law.villanova.edu>
To <ausman@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>, <declan@well.com>
Cc <politech@politechbot.com>, <ausman@soda.csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject Re FC Jim Maule's defense of Hugh Prestwood and RIAA
	lawsuits
Mime-Version 1.0

>>> James Ausman <ausman@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> 9/10/2003 31132 PM >>>
writes

But of the course the fundamental difference is that an idea is not
property. Property rights protect property, you know, that real
physical thing that you can touch with your hands and exists in
only limited quantities. If someone takes your model train set, you
are without a model train set. You have lost and they have gained.
If someone copies a song that you "own" you both have copies. Nothing
has been lost, only gained.

JEM Not so. If someone copies a song to which I have the copy-right,
they take from me the income I can generate by making a copy and selling
it to the person who compensates the thief for the copy that the thief
had no right to make and sell. Property law and copyright law have
similarities resting on an underlying legal principle the owner of a
RIGHT (of any kind) is protected by law from impermissible intrusion on
that right by others (e.g., INFRINGEMENT in copyright law and TRESPASS
in real property law, CONVERSION in personal property law, etc etc)

No, not like plantation owners. Not like muggers. Only a lawyer could
confuse the real world, with its tangable objects, with the crazy
attempt to map Intellectual Property laws to the world of ideas. Ideas
are not tangable objects and no one "owns" them. Guess what? People
created songs and invented things before the notion of Intellectual
Property came along. Society decided it was in our collective best
interest to create patent laws to encourage creativity. They are
not inherent qualities and attempts by people like you to transfer
the rules regarding actual real property to the "intellectual
property"
world are only going to make you look more and more foolish and are
already leading to the inevitable backlash. No matter how much you
try to pretend that an idea is "property," it is not, and you will
convince no one, but the gullible.

JEM ALL LAW (other than the "laws" of physics and mathematics) is
invented. Our property law is the way it is because somewhere "society"
(legislatures, courts...) decided that feudal tenure didn't work, that
the systems in place in the former Soviet Union, the PRC, etc. weren't
desirable, and that a law of life estates, remainders, tenancy by the
entirety, etc etc would work. The Framers decided that there would be
legal protection of copyright. The fact that it (as other law) was
"created" (rather than being bestowed from On High) makes no difference
to my point the law is valid, it creates rights, and those who trespass
or infringe on those rights are violating the law, whether by stealing a
wallet, stealing a copyright, or stealing parts of a barn. It really is
very simple. It's the pirates, who in an attempt to make theft look like
a good deed for society, claim that intangibles aren't property, or are
"different" in some way that permits what is illegal behavior. There is
nothing INHERENT in real property that causes life estates and
remainders to exist anymore than there is anything INHERENT in
intellectual property that causes copyright to exist. SO WHAT? And if
you read my post, nowhere do I claim an idea is property. I compare the
protection of a property right with the protection of a copy right. BOTH
ARE RIGHTS and both are protected by the law.

The laws creating the ownership of ideas was designed to encourage
creativity and to reward creators for their own work. Allowing this
to be passed on discourages creativity. Why should your children
create anything when they can just live off the work of their
ancestors?
What a terrible precident. Your vision leads to a world where every
invention, every innovation, every piece of entertainment is held by
a few, instead of the commonweal of humanity. They can withold as
they see fit or charge as much as they like, impoverishing any who
cannot afford the fee. The intellectual and creative output of mankind
is our birthright, not some thing to be bartered and sold.

JEM If society wants to eliminate or curtail the ability of people to
live off the rewards of the work of their parents, grandparents, great
grandparents, etc, it can (and has) impose wealth transfer taxes (estate
tax, gift tax, inheritance tax, etc). The law permits people to live off
the income of trust funds set up with the fruits of the ancestors'
rights. That's a totally different issue. The argument that the pirates
are doing a "Robin Hood" benefit is a smoke screen, not only because
they're not passing anything onto the "poor", but because they're not
distinguishing the wealth status of those from whom they steal. The
defenses that have been posted, and emailed to me off-list, citing the
abuses of the Disneys of the world presuppose that only the Disneys of
the world are being harmed. As the son of a musician, as a writer and
programmer, and as the father of an artist in the making, I have first
hand experience that not every copyright owner who is harmed by pirating
is a Disney or other megacorporation.

JEM P.S. I have repeatedly clarified that I am NOT advocating a
perpetual copyright term, and in any event that has no bearing on the
analysis of the actions of pirates during the copyright term.



Jim Maule
Professor of Law, Villanova University School of Law
Villanova PA 19085
maule@law.villanova.edu
http//vls.law.vill.edu/prof/maule
President, TaxJEM Inc (computer assisted tax law instruction)
(www.taxjem.com)
Publisher, JEMBook Publishing Co. (www.jembook.com)
Owner/Developer, TaxCruncherPro (www.taxcruncherpro.com)
Maule Family Archivist & Genealogist (www.maulefamily.com)





Date Wed, 10 Sep 2003 224924 +0100
From David Tomlinson <d.tomlinson@tiscali.co.uk>

<x-flowed>
Declan McCullagh wrote

Previous Politech message
Reply to Hugh Prestwood and RIAA suing individual P2P
http//www.politechbot.com/p-05056.html

I was hoping someone else would take the burden of educating James.
But here is my attempt.

> 
> So, If I build a barn-like structure with my own hands, and then build
> a huge model railroad display inside, and then invite the public to
> visit for $10 a visit per person
<snip>
> But if I were to write a song or make a movie about my model layout 

Not another alchemist who can turn non-physical and non-rival goods into 
property. They are not the same ... interlectual property is not the 
same as physical property. Interlectual property is a deliberately 
misleading term.

And you are seriously deluded if you think that the idea of railroads, 
model railroads, or anything else is your creative and exclusive 
invention, without reference to society, culture or other peoples 
creative labours.

> The idea that people come to visit and pay $10 because they want to
> expand on my work? 

I don't know, they may be inspired to build a larger or more 
sophisticated railroad. After all you were so inspired. You did not 
invent the railroad or the model railroad as a idea. You are just 
building on the work of others.

But they are actually paying for access to your physical property and 
the railroad is the attraction.

No the whole premise is that interlectual property goods are non-rival, 
so unlike physical goods you are not deprived of them when someone else 
enjoy's them. And no matter how much you protest about your creativity, 
you have borrowed substantially form the cultural environment and the 
work of other people.

In fact as non-physical goods the premise, is like ideas, you can't own 
them. Just like idea's.

You want a return on your creativity, make live performances, of your 
railroad in your barn. The movie is just promotional material, so people 
will be encouraged to pay to see the real thing.

The real issue is where do you get to control the behaviour of eveyone 
else. Don't want movies to be made of your railroad to be available. 
Don't allow cameras on your property. That is the limit of your control.

Someone else might see the opportunity in getting more free publicity by 
circulating a film of their railroad. And in my view if they make the 
film publicly available through sale or other form of distribution they 
are explitly for going control. The doctrine of first sale.

Do you have to go to school to learn to be creative, I wonder how early 
cultures managed.

It would appear that you are not sufficiently educated  to understand 
the abstract world of non-physical property. I hope I have contributed 
to your education on the non-rival aspects of culture.

Culture is an emergent property of society.

http//dictionary.reference.com/search?q=culture

"  1. The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, 
beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.
    2. These patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression 
of a particular period, class, community, or population Edwardian 
culture; Japanese culture; the culture of poverty.
    3. These patterns, traits, and products considered with respect to a 
particular category, such as a field, subject, or mode of expression 
religious culture in the Middle Ages; musical culture; oral culture.
    4. The predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the 
functioning of a group or organization."

You cannot own your personal aspect of culture to the exclusion of 
everyone else. It is not an individual trait or product.


Regards

David.


p.s.

James,

Given your views, I am sure that you will want to credit my paypal 
account with the outstanding royalties on the invention of the wheel. I 
am sure a relative (perhaps distant) was part of the development 
process. Very reasonale rates $1 per annum, back to when your ancestors 
first applied this technology. (I will in additional waive any rights to 
fire).

p.p.s

Try reading your constitution for the original, and now much abused, 
intention behind copyright. Which with the development of the internet 
should in my view be abandoned.





Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 155555 -0400
From brunkb@ils.unc.edu
To maule@law.villanova.edu, declan@well.com
Subject apples vs. oranges
Message-ID <1167707114.1063122955@flaffa>

<x-flowed>
Jim,

Having just read your post to Declan's list, I'd like to offer a few 
comments.  I think you're comparing apples to oranges when you compare a 
model railroad exhibit to which admission is charged, with the music 
business.  The business models are quite different, as are the issues 
involved.  I tend to agree with what Jason said because when the founders 
set up our country, they created a copyright system and a patent system 
that included limited time periods for control of the monopoly.  Neither 
copyright nor patents apply to your model train example, however.

The idea behind these two systems was to protect the holder of the patent 
or copyright for a relatively short period of time so that they could 
recover the costs of their innovation or work.  The idea was that they are 
contributing to the knowledge and culture of society, and that knowledge 
and culture must at some point reach the public domain and become widely 
accessible with no restrictions on use.  The point was never so that 
companies could make money for decades or centuries.  That notion, I 
suspect, would have been completely foreign to our nation's founders to 
whom copyrights were there to ensure that a book or other work would have a 
single "official" source.  It is only in the 20th and now 21st century that 
these tried and true foundations of our republic have been co-opted by 
corporatists who have the ability to convince legislators that 
protectionism and monopolization is what the founders really intended. 
It's all nonsense, and it is indicative of just how corrupt our system of 
government has become and how few people really understand it.  The RIAA 
lawsuits are a consequence of public policy gone awry.  Technology forces 
change.  The RIAA can resist that change all they please, but in the end, 
they are only hurting themselves--the next generation of file swapping 
systems will not allow the RIAA to track users so easily.

I, for one, think we should encourage the marketplace of ideas, even if 
this means that record companies have to alter their revenue models.


Ben Brunk



Date Tue, 9 Sep 2003 110748 -0700
Mime-Version 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551)
Content-Type text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Subject reply to James Maule
From Harry Shearer <harryj@interworld.net>
To declan@well.com

Such a bad analogy.  What distinguishes music and its industry from 
other pursuits--like building a model train exhibit in your barn--is 
that, for more than sixty years, the music industry has been giving its 
product away.  In some cases, as with radio airplay, it had to be 
dragged kicking and screaming (recognize that behavior?) into 
acknowledging that airplay was a promotional bonus to record sales, in 
other cases, less documented but no less true, the industry has given 
away caseloads of "product", with no payment of the royalties to 
artists, to those whom it wished to flatter or cajole, including its 
own underpaid employees.  It's a full thirty years since FM stations 
started advising their listeners to "start your tape machines" as they 
played full-length albums on Sunday nights, with the connivance and 
cooperation of the record companies (artists not consulted). Ask the 
septuagenarian R&B artists who have to depend on the Rhythm and Blues 
Foundation for their medical expenses how sensitive the industry has 
been over the years to artists' rights.  The industry dug its own grave 
and it wants to blame us for its demise.  Worse yet, it wants to sue us 
into saving it.



From Monk <monk@redneck.gacracker.org>
To declan@well.com

Mr. Maule's argument has a fatal flaw, this comparison of a song and a barn. 
Does he have the right to pass on the barn to his heirs?  Of course.  But it
is not an issue of the barn being built, but of the land on which it stands.

This is the difference that the writers of the US Constitution understood
but which he seems to miss.

Monk
sw




----- End forwarded message -----



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------




Enter your email address to join Politech, Declan McCullagh's moderated technology and politics announcement list:

Return to politechbot.com