UK student faces U.S. extradition in copyright case

[Simon_Jester]

If a law is unjust, that should be factored into the extradition decision- if I think you will be punished out of proportion to your 'crime' in another country, I shouldn't send you there to stand trial.

[Darth Fanboy]

But even a stupid law IS THE LAW

I understand you mean that even a stupid law poses danger. However, if a law is horseshit, following it becomes immoral (and stupid just as the law itself is).

The problem with the laws in this case are overzealous prosecution and way overblown punishments. That does not however justify media piracy, or profiting from material that is not copyrighted or licensed.

[Darth Fanboy]

If a law is unjust, that should be factored into the extradition decision- if I think you will be punished out of proportion to your 'crime' in another country, I shouldn't send you there to stand trial.

Is there even one person in this thread arguing in favor of extradition that makes this statement anything beyond useless? Does the fact that an overblown punishment negate the inherent wrongness of an illegal activity?

Suppose the penalty for shoplifiting was a multi year prison sentence and a massive fine. That would be entirely unjust, it does not however justify shoplifiting. I don't think that the kneejerk reactions in this thread towards prosecuting media pirates would be anything noteworthy except for the irresponsible recourses that the industry seeks, and the out of porportion response from government agencies like ICE.

[Simon_Jester]

There are already a lot of countries who won't extradite murderers to the US because we have the death penalty. Would it surprise anyone if people start refusing to extradite copyright violators because we levy six-figure fines on random private citizens for copyright violations?

[Darth Fanboy]

Who exactly are you arguing with Simon? Nobody in this thread supports extradition for copyright violations.

[K. A. Pital]

That does not however justify media piracy

He was not selling access to said material. Which does not make it classic piracy. If you share the material for free, I posit that no copyright holder should be able to sue you for "piracy". Copyright is an ugly remnant of an old rigid system that no longer has any use in the modern world.

[Questor]

What do you propose should replace it? Are you advocating the elimination of all intellectual property?

[K. A. Pital]

What do you propose should replace it? Are you advocating the elimination of all intellectual property?

1. Copyleft. In various forms.
2. In its current form? Yes. If limited to the point where it is no more protected than patents on a far more important thing, say, life-saving drugs (which have barely a few years until expiring and allowing for generics, etc.) - no.

[Darth Fanboy]

That does not however justify media piracy

He was not selling access to said material. Which does not make it classic piracy. If you share the material for free, I posit that no copyright holder should be able to sue you for "piracy". Copyright is an ugly remnant of an old rigid system that no longer has any use in the modern world.

He was making money providing access to that material though, and thus profiting from the illegal act. If he hadn't been selling the ad space, regardless of how much went into his account, you would have a more compelling argument. Whether or not you agree with how copyright works is irrelevant.

[Questor]

2. In its current form? Yes. If limited to the point where it is no more protected than patents on a far more important thing, say, life-saving drugs (which have barely a few years until expiring and allowing for generics, etc.) - no.

Interesting, I have almost the exact opposite perspective. I could not care less when (or even if) "Steamboat Willy" enters public domain, but I think there are important public policy reasons to keep the current length of a patent - and I'd be open to shortening it.

It should not be possible to monopolize, for example, a life saving drug beyond a certain point. In fact, I'd support some kind of buy-out option on patents. For example, let's say Company X invents a cure for cancer, the government (or non-profits, or anybody with the money) could force the patent in to public domain by paying - say - the actual (inflation adjusted) R&D cost multiplied by the number of years left on the patent to the patent holders.

As for copyright? Really, does it matter? In the grand scheme of IP, does it really matter if last week's Doctor Who is protected for 100 years or 1 year? Who does the longer term hurt?

[Simon_Jester]

I don't think Stas wants to extend patents on life-saving drugs. I just think he wants to shorten copyright to match. As Darth Wong pointed out (this used to be in someone's sig), it doesn't make sense that you get to keep raking in profits on an episode of Full House for longer than you get to profit from the cure for cancer.

This only really becomes a problem as we find that more and more of what we might call 'culture' is copyrighted. In the US, only works before about 1925 are in the public domain- which means archaic works set in and created by a different era. Almost anything current, with even the slightest degree of cultural freshness or relevance, is copyrighted and will remain so, as the property of a single for-profit entity.

And I do think that's bad for the culture.

[Questor]

I don't think Stas wants to extend patents on life-saving drugs. I just think he wants to shorten copyright to match. As Darth Wong pointed out (this used to be in someone's sig), it doesn't make sense that you get to keep raking in profits on an episode of Full House for longer than you get to profit from the cure for cancer.

This only really becomes a problem as we find that more and more of what we might call 'culture' is copyrighted. In the US, only works before about 1925 are in the public domain- which means archaic works set in and created by a different era. Almost anything current, with even the slightest degree of cultural freshness or relevance, is copyrighted and will remain so, as the property of a single for-profit entity.

And I do think that's bad for the culture.

This is what I don't get about this whole argument. You say this is bad for culture, and that copyright restrains things. I say, "yeah, that's kinda the point."

For the life of me, I cannot think of a reason why copyright should not extend indefinitely. I'm not a rights holder, or even a hard core free-market fetishist, but I cannot think of any HARM that comes from copyright, and since I can't see the harm, I see no reason to restrict someone's ability to make a profit off of a work. If someone (let's say William S.) creates a work (or several) that are still popular after 400 years, I see absolutely no reason why his heirs can not profit off of that. I would assume that the ability to create a work that would be popular for centuries is not that common.

Back to the point at hand, I do not know what the relevance of length of copyright is to this discussion. Is there anyone who thinks that majority of IP infringement is of works that would be public domain under even the 28 year total term of the Copyright Act of 1790?

I would love to see data showing that most people are being respectful of someone's right to make a living in a creative pursuit, but I think everyone is willing to acknowledge that IP Infringement is not being used to keep old works alive, but to get around restrictions on the distribution of new works.

If you do not believe in copyright at all, and are one of the many people who profess to believe that musicians should make money off of performances only, I'd like to see a way to extend that model to movies, or even books. How about paintings? Sculptures?

[Questor]

1) Copyright is the government restricting people, so it should do more than just not cause harm. Rather, it should help something. Otherwise, no need for the big G to push people around. You said: "I see no reason to restrict someone's ability to make a profit off of a work.", but who is being restricted depends on what side you're on; it could go both ways.

I disagree, I see copyright as government protecting people, especially from these large, for-profit, companies. Copyright, and especially implicit copyright (I think that's the right term) is all that keeps some big publishing house from taking somebody's web-fiction and publishing it as their own and keeping all the profit. Heck, copyright even protects FAN-FICTION, at least to some degree, or at least that's the impression I get from comments made by the creators of Babylon 5 and the rules on many a writer's web-boards.

In the case of protections, and as I said, I believe copyright is a protection in addition to restriction, the restriction should cause less harm than the protection provides benefit, and I believe copyright (at any length) does.

But, let's put that aside and look at the pros and cons of copyright itself.

2) Copyright both fosters and hinders innovation. It fosters it by enabling profit, incentivising creation of shit. But, it hinders it in that there's more red tape to go through when making something.

For a larger profit going entity, this isn't a big deal. You can always just license that shit. But, if you're a smaller guy and/or don't want to fuck with funding, this can be a hassle.

Being able to go through a library of old, expired shit and just grab it out is pretty nice. You can now repackage it with your ideas and cut costs, enabling your own innovation.

This is a valid point, and I'm not entirely sure how to address it. To me, the longer copyright would seem to allow greater risks by allowing profit for a longer term, but I am forced to admit that my own statements would seem to make that out to be a lie. My problem is that I want a single system to protect the rights of the above "William S." or even that "Homer" guy, but at the same time I also think that the ability to do what you just said is valuable. Maybe a better, broader, definition of fair use would address your concerns while still addressing mine, maybe there's no way to reconcile the two, I need to think.

3) Long copyrights might enable someone to just sit on the same old shit and milk it forever. This is good and bad... if he can milk it, fuck it, good for him. But, on the other hand, this doesn't force him to continue working and making new stuff to keep eating. (lol that makes it sound bad but whatever)

Maybe, but I really think license revenue is going to drop off considerably after even a few years unless you're talking about someone like Michael Crichton, who's estate is probably still making at least some money off of Jurassic Park the book. This will force the creation of new work, while still allowing for the existence of masterpieces that can stand the test of time.

I want to say this specifically though:

it doesn't make sense that you get to keep raking in profits on an episode of Full House for longer than you get to profit from the cure for cancer.

It makes a lot of sense to me. The cure for cancer is a public good that you'll want to lay out in the open. An episode of Full House is just for fun; it is much more of a private benefit than a public one like medical advances.

Yeah, that kind of sentiment is what started my ranting. I really love my "Public domain buy out" idea. I may write my senators.

[Darth Fanboy]

I want to say this specifically though:

it doesn't make sense that you get to keep raking in profits on an episode of Full House for longer than you get to profit from the cure for cancer.

It makes a lot of sense to me. The cure for cancer is a public good that you'll want to lay out in the open. An episode of Full House is just for fun; it is much more of a private benefit than a public one like medical advances.

But D13, what about the rights of people who don't want to pay for movies? Don't they have the right to no-cost entertainment whenever they want at someone else's expense because digital mediums enable it?

[Simon_Jester]

Primitive scarecrow arguments aside:

D13, I get that there's a stronger incentive to get a cure for cancer out into the public domain. But correspondingly, developing a cure for cancer is much harder, and of much more value. As long as we buy into the basic model of letting private concerns make technological discoveries in hopes of being rewarded, we have to reward them for major breakthroughs.

If, say, the reward for a medical breakthrough is "profits for ten years, then everyone gets a shot at it and you lose most of your competitive advantage," while the reward for a TV episode is "profits until everyone personally involved with the creation of this work is long dead and forgotten, and realistically until the work itself is long forgotten and has sat untouched on a shelf for decades..."

To me, that looks like coddling the people who created the TV episode. As it now stands, a US-style copyright to artistic IP amounts to a guaranteed permanent revenue stream for the company who owns the IP- and most valuable IP does belong to companies. There are exceptions (mostly novels and such), but the problem is still there.

I'm more comfortable with "guaranteed permanent revenue" to individual artists (who have limited creative lifespan and can only produce so many good works before they start slowing down) than I am giving them to corporations (who are immortal and can easily reinvent themselves at will to make money through new methods).

[Shroom Man 777]

I'm just glad that poor shmucks here can buy fake-brand Chinese-made DVD players (Sonny! Twoshiba! Samsong! ) and shove cheap less-than-a-dollar pirated DVDs (pirated by the Chinese) and have fun and enjoy things that they would otherwise never ever be able to afford. An original DVD would cost like half of what some of these folks earn in a month, so boo-fucking-hoo if these guys get to watch pirated movies and the big billion-dollar companies don't get revenues from that, since these guys would never be buying original stuff anyway.

I also mentioned in Testing how I saw this police officer, a SWAT guy decked out in gear and on a motorbike, was parked by a sidewalk and this kid from a street vendor stall walks up to him and hands him a thick stack of pirated DVDs.

[Darth Fanboy]

To me, that looks like coddling the people who created the TV episode.

Your priorities are out of fucking whack if you are going to look at that argument and focus on how much better the copyright deal is for TV studios than it is for new medicines. There is little, if any, societal harm if a piece of individual music or a TV episode is allowed to remain under copyright for a prolonged period of time, and there is if medical breakthroughs stay exclusive.

I'm just glad that poor shmucks here can buy fake-brand Chinese-made DVD players (Sonny! Twoshiba! Samsong! ) and shove cheap less-than-a-dollar pirated DVDs (pirated by the Chinese) and have fun and enjoy things that they would otherwise never ever be able to afford. An original DVD would cost like half of what some of these folks earn in a month, so boo-fucking-hoo if these guys get to watch pirated movies and the big billion-dollar companies don't get revenues from that, since these guys would never be buying original stuff anyway.

I can empathize in the scenario you're talking about shroomy, but tech-saavy kid from the West with access to high tech modern gadgets that have become household staples don't exactly strike me as moral crusaders for trying to save the equivalent of one to two hours worth of minimum wage.

[Shroom Man 777]

I hope we have less effect on the scheme of things, the whole copyright piracy profit stealing uurgh thing, than the "tech savvy kids" in the West.

But then again, its the entire Philippines, and so many other third world nations, partaking in this.

[Darth Fanboy]

I hope we have less effect on the scheme of things, the whole copyright piracy profit stealing uurgh thing, than the "tech savvy kids" in the West.

I dunno maybe I didn't phrase it right. But I don't see that what goes on over there is as big of a deal, because it's just like you said, people in the Phillipines and in other parts of the world that, to understate it, are not well to do. But I perosnally know people over here who make decent enough money (one person making $20/hour full time), but still have countless gigs of mp3s movies and games they didn't pay money for because they could just pirate it for free over the internet and it doesn't take much of their time because in the LA/Orange County area here high speed internet is widely and cheaply availiable.

[K. A. Pital]

This is what I don't get about this whole argument. You say this is bad for culture, and that copyright restrains things. I say, "yeah, that's kinda the point."

It is a point to restrain and damage culture? In this case the point is a pretty bad one.

For the life of me, I cannot think of a reason why copyright should not extend indefinitely. I'm not a rights holder, or even a hard core free-market fetishist, but I cannot think of any HARM that comes from copyright, and since I can't see the harm, I see no reason to restrict someone's ability to make a profit off of a work. If someone (let's say William S.) creates a work (or several) that are still popular after 400 years, I see absolutely no reason why his heirs can not profit off of that. I would assume that the ability to create a work that would be popular for centuries is not that common.

Because the personal gain of William S. or an organization which later holds his copyright (as this is a transferrable right, which makes the whole thing simply preposterous, by the way, if you consider the so-called "writer negroes" or translators on a wage who fortfeit their "indefinite" copyright and the right to profit from works for a monthly wage!) is a personal gain of a company or individual at a massive expense to society.

If you do not believe in copyright at all, and are one of the many people who profess to believe that musicians should make money off of performances only, I'd like to see a way to extend that model to movies, or even books. How about paintings? Sculptures?

I already did.

With zero costs of distribution, shouldn't we really be all supportive of greater competition? Come on! Technology demands it!

Look at it that way: only movies which make it big at the box office will survive, among blockbusters. That means B-movie crap can't survive relying on DVD, etc. sales. Arthouse movies are lossy anyway, sometimes they don't get any screening. In fact, free distribution channels becoming more popular will propel an arthouse or independent movie to mass viewings if it is really good due to the viral spread of advice on stuff. Ergo, no damage done.

Audio industry: bands either "go big" and survive via money from tours and concerts which can't be replaced by CD sales, or die. CD sales die. Independent bands do not operate a profit anyway and thus get a bonus due to free-distribution channels becoming more popular. Independent bands can now reach millions of people if their music is really good. No damage done.

Uh... book industry: books have never been a purely commercial venture; some of the greatest masterpieces were created by their authors without the desire to get lots of cash or get any cash at all. Since book writing is not that well-paid a job, most authors have other sources of income and spend free time on writing novels and such. Independent literature gets a boost, since distribution is more readily available and free distribution channels become more popular.

What will be pushed out? Mediocre crap that is "not good enough" to become a blockbuster and get enough cash at the cinema, concert, or whatever. That is only desireable. Both poles of art - arthouse and big-box-office movies and bands that rake in lots of cash on concerts will get a huge boost.

As you can see, most forms of art can easily survive the collapse of copyright and some may even be improved. Just like newspaper survived radio, radio and theatre survived television and they all survived the Internet.

Those who advocate "paying" do not realize that they are advocating utter mediocrity.

[Simon_Jester]

Most of the entertainment I pay for comes in the form of novels. While "most authors have other sources of income," the ones who are actually professional, with books that are well worth reading and passing on to others, usually reach a point where they can write full-time under the current system. Most of what I buy comes from authors who I know would have had to find something else to do for a living without their royalties from book sales. Not 'wanted to,' perhaps, but 'had to.' So I don't think I'm on board with your ideas, Stas.

"Mediocrity" from your point of view includes the vast majority of reasonably entertaining content. You seem to have this image that great art is created by people who either shiver and starve in a garret while it's being made, or by people hammering out the Great American Novel in odd hours around their job. The former model strikes me as a great cruelty to artists; the latter strikes me as impractical because it discourages people from taking the time to perfect their art.

I'm content with copyright for individuals who create the content. What I dislike is the idea that this can be transferred to immortal corporations when the copyright laws make such a point of deciding timing by the death of the author.

[Zixinus]

Is there even one person in this thread arguing in favor of extradition that makes this statement anything beyond useless?

I would be in favour of the US sueing the guy IN THE UK for these copyright violations.

After all, you yourself pointed out that what the guy was doing WAS illegal in the UK. So why not sue him for that in the UK? Is there something preventing from this happening?

The wrong in this whole isn't just the whole copyright-thing, but that the US can drag people from the UK for a petty reason (the guy WAS NOT a terrorist, unless you happen to be the MPAA's president). That is far, far more disturbing that the piracy-crackdown thing.

[Questor]

It is a point to restrain and damage culture? In this case the point is a pretty bad one.

Everyone seems to be taking it as gospel that copyright restrains and damages culture. I ask again, other than restricting distribution, how does it do that? If restricting distribution is the only problem, well, then we should probably agree to disagree, because I do not see ANY way to move to your system without completely restructuring society (something I know that you support). Myself, I tend to be skeptical of drastic, unprecedented, changes (although I do acknowledge that somebody has to do something first).

Because the personal gain of William S. or an organization which later holds his copyright (as this is a transferrable right, which makes the whole thing simply preposterous, by the way, if you consider the so-called "writer negroes" or translators on a wage who fortfeit their "indefinite" copyright and the right to profit from works for a monthly wage!) is a personal gain of a company or individual at a massive expense to society.

Again, what is this massive expense? Before the internet, and more particularly digital distribution, this entire line of reasoning would have been looked at as insane. Libraries were maintained as a public service, but everyone knew that they were a money sink.

I already did.

Mea culpa. Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa. Father I apologize for not reading every thread on the great webboard StarDestroyer.net. I will say thirty Hail Marys and scourge myself.

With zero costs of distribution, shouldn't we really be all supportive of greater competition? Come on! Technology demands it!

Look at it that way: only movies which make it big at the box office will survive, among blockbusters. That means B-movie crap can't survive relying on DVD, etc. sales. Arthouse movies are lossy anyway, sometimes they don't get any screening. In fact, free distribution channels becoming more popular will propel an arthouse or independent movie to mass viewings if it is really good due to the viral spread of advice on stuff. Ergo, no damage done.

So you think that arthouse movies should be the only ones made? Think about what site you're on.

Audio industry: bands either "go big" and survive via money from tours and concerts which can't be replaced by CD sales, or die. CD sales die. Independent bands do not operate a profit anyway and thus get a bonus due to free-distribution channels becoming more popular. Independent bands can now reach millions of people if their music is really good. No damage done.

Never argued that this is conceptually possible, but I suspect that you'd have a lot fewer bands if they can't at least partially offset the costs.

Uh... book industry: books have never been a purely commercial venture; some of the greatest masterpieces were created by their authors without the desire to get lots of cash or get any cash at all. Since book writing is not that well-paid a job, most authors have other sources of income and spend free time on writing novels and such. Independent literature gets a boost, since distribution is more readily available and free distribution channels become more popular.

I'm calling bullshit on this one. Yes, some of the greatest masterpieces were created with no intention of profit, but most of them weren't. Just because writing may or may not be that well paid has nothing to do with the fact that people who expend the effort to become writers should have the ability to make a living doing it, just like other creatives.

What will be pushed out? Mediocre crap that is "not good enough" to become a blockbuster and get enough cash at the cinema, concert, or whatever. That is only desireable. Both poles of art - arthouse and big-box-office movies and bands that rake in lots of cash on concerts will get a huge boost.

As you can see, most forms of art can easily survive the collapse of copyright and some may even be improved. Just like newspaper survived radio, radio and theatre survived television and they all survived the Internet.

Those who advocate "paying" do not realize that they are advocating utter mediocrity.

Funny, I don't see it that way at all, I see it as you being willing to virtually end all production of non-proven artists in order to satisfy your own pleasure.

[Thanas]

I don't think paying 1000 to extend copyright is a viable solution. If that were the case, we can for example expect nearly all classical music to still be copyrighted as each of the more popular works would easily make more than 1000 dollars a year. Instead, I would say 1000 as a minimum but if the revenue is more than that and always will be, a certain percentage of the revenue added as tax on it seems to be a better solution to me. Said percentage would increase steadily until almost hitting 100% after a certain time period (say, 60/70 years or so).

[Darth Fanboy]

I would be in favour of the US sueing the guy IN THE UK for these copyright violations.

After all, you yourself pointed out that what the guy was doing WAS illegal in the UK. So why not sue him for that in the UK? Is there something preventing from this happening?

Absolutely agree that whatever mechanism for prosecuting should happen in the UK. I've never advocated that what was being done by the US in this case. was the right way to go and have stated my opposition to that.

The wrong in this whole isn't just the whole copyright-thing, but that the US can drag people from the UK for a petty reason (the guy WAS NOT a terrorist, unless you happen to be the MPAA's president). That is far, far more disturbing that the piracy-crackdown thing.

Oh hey look what I said in one of my first posts of this thread

And then there is this part of the article:

"If they can come for Richard, they can come for anybody ... there are no safeguards for British citizens," she told reporters after the hearing.

There is a safeguard and that's the British court of law, this is overblown but that's a damn failure right there IMHO to allow this extradition to occur.

No, the US cannot "drag people from the UK". The UK Judge is ALLOWING THE EXTRADITION, that is the key failure here, and the home secretary will hopefully overrule that. The US is not arbitraily grabbing a British Citizen and prosecuting him.

This is the second time in the same thread i'm having to repeat myself to you because you either aren't reading or aren't understand.