Sorry for the essay guys i just have a lot to say.

<essay>

What bugs me about copyright laws and digital media, is such, ANY UNAUTHORIZED copies of data are considered illegal. especially when it comes to the internet, the largest distrubited network on the planet. Im going to explain the process of how a file gets transfered. Lets say you viewing a
page in your favorite browser. What you computer does is send out a request, this request goes to your main uplink it is copied and then sent out to another computer. This process is repeated until it gets to its destination. Once the request for the data is received by the computer, the computer makes
a copy (really it induces the electrial feild of the magnetic domains, which then is turned into a stream of electrons which of course is a copy of the data or file required) of what is on the hard disk, and sends that copy to its uplink. This process is thus repeated until it reaches its destination.
[ Remember this is a gross over-simplification ]

Now what if this data was copyrighted? Would all of the people involved in the transaction of the data be liable for copying and distrubing this data against the copyright? Okay lets assume they aren't. It's just the final user in the end who is responable, becuase they made the initial
request. Now since the end user is probally running a modern OS and a modern browser chances are, that first, the browser has a copy of the page on your disk, and second your OS might have the data in a swap file on your disk as well. Not to mention that also a copy must exist in your RAM and most likely
also in the RAM of your video card. Are you responsible for these as well?

"You know you are responsable for your actions. You turned the computer on, didn't you? And don't give me that you didn't know crap, ignorance is no excuse when it comes to the law! So if you did turn it on, regardless of if you knew it or not, your liable".

- Our law attitude.

Now I have heard the argument that RAM is acceptable becuase it isn't "permanant" but data is data and copying is copying. We talking about copyright, not the right to temporaraly copy data if the ontents are "lost" in a given temporal unit (you know secs, minutes, hours, etc.) Lets also assume for some weird reason that RAM is okay becuase of its volatile nature. Like when the power goes out and you lose 3 hours of your work. Now you can think the RAM ("THANKS RAM".) Lets just say it's when the user intentionally copies the data for the computers RAM, into a permanant storage device, ie. hard disk, holographic cube, record, CD, tape backup, and the billons of other mass storage methods. Now intentionally is a cute word. You can have data copied to a disk with out intentionally doing it. One way is via caching or swapping, and yes you did look at the page, so you did tell the computer what you wanted it to do. You wanted to look at the page, COPYING the page is
required for you to even view it. So in that since you could be considered intentionally copying it or not, depending on how the person looks at it. From one side, yes, you did initiate the transfer. But form the other end you didn't want the data for your own permanent usage. Of course the evidence
points to the fact that yes, you do have the data so you do plan to infridge on someones copyright. How do you prove someone's intentions anyways? I wouldn't trust someone who wants to put me in jail for something my computer does as part of its programming, just because i want to look at a webpage.
Which is most likely what would happen given the physical evidence.

This of course is obsured, and would require a radical change of internet structure, and that of the common day browsers and OS's. This would be a major techonlogical and economic effort. Even more than fixing the Y2K design flaw that existed in most major computer systems(mostly becuase of our cool C library). I feel it is much easier to change the language of the
copyright laws. The intentions of the original laws were to give credit to the
creator, and all the creator to have exclusive rights to all aspects of the
material. This includes selling the work, giving it out for free, and using it
as a trade for goods and services. While this is a great idea in all, we still need to remember that this law was thought out when there was no internet. The original "base" law is, of course, what i am refering to. This law was put into affect when objects were tangable. A painting, a book, an essay on how fungy grows are all tangable. What bugs me is the fact that people think that
data is a tangable object, sure its electrons which are tangable, but how do you own the electons in a line? All electrons are the same. You dont have the picture electron, the text electron, the bank transaction electron, these don't exist. Then how are they really tangable? Atoms don't even consist of just electrons you need the whole sub-atomic soup.

[Time for the author's biased opinion]

Now I realize this is a gray so bear with me. Since data can be copied so readily and easily, copying should be allowed. Now i know what you are thinking so just hang on and let me explain myself. Lets say that any one who knows how to use a computer can copy some data (bad assumption i know but bear
with me.) By this i mean an exact copy, now what an exact copy does for us is the ability to embed a signature into the data to allow the data to be authenticated from you being the source. When it is distrubited an exact copy will most likely circulate. Of course any person proficent enough could remove/change the signatures, the vast majority of copies will show the true owner. Of course monatary conditions must be obtained: there are two major reasons why most people copyright work: credit, and money. I can understand the former, and kinda the later. My understanding of the later is only becuase our society is setup in that way. But we can't ignore our economic engine can we? Charge for access, not content! The setup is like this: So one who wants to setup a place where they charge a monthly fee for unlimited access to a particular area of content or whatever. They get content the old fashion way by hiring or paying people to create content for them. Notice how new
and meaningful content will be important becuase, many of these services could
exist. The service the provides the best ACCESS to outstanding/load of content
will be the best. And since ideas spread fast this will spur creativity not destroy it. Why bother, A) Hunting for data that might be sheilded B) breaking through barriers to find content c) finding unuseful content, when you can just pay a (small) fee to get access? This is of course is the money route,
there should be nothing stopping people who want to give away content they have or find out for free. Just as long as the orginal author has credit (and has been paid, now look at that) and companies have billions and billions of people accessing their nodes(sites). I dont think that anyone will have a problem. See if you provide a quality service, at a cheap price, very little
piracy will go on, becuase they are, like most people, lazy. Only if there is
a "market" for it, will it be worth their time.

This author does believe in freedom of information, but draws the line at personal information. Like credit records, wedding documents, etc. These don't benefit humanity as a whole. Maybe the black-mailer, but not humanity.

The purpose of this paper is just my attempt to put my thoughts to words, and to try to see if people will bite on the line that i have dropped.

</essay>

If your going to flame me on either my grammar or spelling send me an email please, I would apprecate it.

So what do we all think about what i have been saying? I mean am i full of shit or what? :] Awating your reponses...

[This message has been edited by soullace (edited 09-20-2000).]

[This message has been edited by soullace (edited 09-20-2000).]

Ram is a copyright violation.
Say I loaded one copy of software onto a server, then gave the world execute access. That means anyone could use the program, but it would only exist in their ram.....

i somehow get the feeling you are referring to napster.

sony had the same problem in the '70's with vcr's. because it is a copyright violation to record shows that are on television.

if you watch football at the end of the game they say "this transmission can not be rebroadcast without the express written consent of the nfl, the home team, and this station."

which means if you record it and watch it you are breaking the law. what the lawsuit in '70's showed is that this is all LEGAL unless you profit from the use of the material. which means you can watch the game just not charge your friends to watch it, and because of this pay-per-view television was born the re-broadcast of copyrighted material.

if you notice most of the bands that have a problem with napster, metallica included, are such poor songwriters that they depend on the success of 1 or 2 songs on an album instead of the album being good as a whole and worth buying. i don't think pink floyd has a problem with napster.

Okay who read my whole essay :]


No, im not only refering to napster. Napster is just one thing in the bigger picture. If the idea is that copying is right until you try to profit form it. That says nothing more than we don't really care about people's intellectual property, we just care if that property is used to make a profit. But if we bring up napster again, napster doesn't make a profit off of its service. It's this projected loss of money in this changing ecomony thats pisses the RIAA (Recording Industry Assocation of America) off. They have no strangle hold to be going off and be doing a napster like service. Once they can all of the sudden it will not only be okay, it will be the American way! I dont think most of the major corperations really care about the main idea behind the copyright, becuase they themselves are kinda stealing them material from the artists. Up until very recently, it was almost impossible to get a good amount of publicity and distrubition without going to a record company (i.e. giving up the rights to your own music.) I realize this is only one aspect, but I should try to get to what i was saying before. Napster is only a part of the picture. I know that ISP's are protect under the...hold on looking it up.... Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Damn what a title of buzz words. But still what about people who act like ISP but aren't techicaly ips there more like nodes and/or routers. I internet is decentralized, is as thus the responablity is of the users. We do not make it illegal for you to go walking outside because you might go and commit a crime. As we should make it illegal for people being on the internet, who are involved in transfering data, to be responsable for that data. For existing on the internet you almost always have to relay data, that isn't even your own.

And Jaded I agree with you about RAM, RAM is and should be considered in violation of copyright. I was just saying IF this was so THEN blah..blah...blah.

I know i'm forgetting things but those thoughts have come and gone. Well have a good day all of yeah.

it still comes down to: if you profit from it, it's illegal.

let's say somebody writes a book, you take a phrase from the book and and print it out and hang it on you wall, legal, you take the same phrase from the book print it on paper and sell it to people; illegal.

ALL copyrighted material is for the enjoyment of the public with all profits paid directly to the owner of the copyright or through royalties.

i am a poet who has copyrighted material, and anybody can use my work for whatever they want as long as they don't profit from it without giving me a percentage or profit from it without my permission or use it in any way that may lead to profit.

gee, tell the to the RIAA.

I wish someone would knock some since into them. We also can't forget about pleagerism now can we. No profits(well at lest most of the time) are made but yet this can still have negative affects.

Here what seem to be copyright criteria:
A) giving the author credit
B) giving the author the right to profit

If these can be met it seems like it would be okay to copy. But when companies say that they are for the basic princapals of the copyright. This is when i begin to question their true line of thought. Companies seem to pull out the biggest amount of bullshit when their profit margins are in danger. I'm talking about most big cooperations btw.

i pose the question: who the fuck cares....there will always be a way to get around it...i can honestly say FUCK COPYRIGHT....i havent bought another music cd or game since i got a cd burner....i dont plan to...leave metallica out of this man...ive listned to them since i was born dude....they have way more intelligence in their lyrics then any of those stupid assholes today...given that their music has deteriorated in the past decade...i still admore them for standing up for something that is so obviously wrong...but it really doesnt matter anymore because nobody wants to pay money for things anymore...the internet is cool for information...but it is again the mindless thrall we call our population that feel it necessary to take a good thing such as napster and rip off song after song and provide it to the general public so they dont have to pay for it....damn...is it legal to tape shit off the radio...no...is this much different...no...im hungry

el privo

i am a hypocrit...oh well...its all because of the system....down with it all....ok i really am hungry now

lol, rather confused aren't we. Well obviously the big dick heads care enough to attack companies. The recording and the music industry are attacking what they can before its too late. For what they lose in reality they make up for in tons of legislation. They know in reality they cann't stop people from using services like napster. Others will pop-up believe me. But as a matter of law, this can only make things worse. Large cooperations like the RIAA and the MPAA have gone way over their heads.

not confused...but bewildered by the pangs of hunger.....sounds better

how the hell do you get those cool smiley faces anyway?

el privo

you say not to say anything bad about metallica that they have a legitimate claim, and then you say you haven't bought a cd or game since you bought a burner???

**confused to the point of headache**

oh and lostmind here is a link for ya

quote:

---

sony had the same problem in the '70's with vcr's. because it is a copyright violation to record shows that are on television. if you watch football at the end of the game they say "this transmission can not be rebroadcast
without the express written consent of the nfl, the home team, and this station." which means if you record it and watch it you are breaking the law. what the lawsuit in '70's
showed is that this is all LEGAL unless you profit from the use of the material. which means you can watch the game just not charge your friends to watch it, and because of this pay-per-view television was born the re-broadcast of copyrighted material.

---

The 2nd myth explains why your point is false.

quote:

---

i am a poet who has copyrighted material, and anybody can use my work for whatever they want as long as they don't profit from it without giving me a percentage or profit from it without my permission or use it in any way that may lead to profit.

---

And the fact that poeple can use your poetry is becuase you allowed them to. You said they are able to do that, this is what copyright is about. You have the right to allow people to do that.

Also lets see if i can find a link about the
bernie convention....well i think this should do good enough. Have fun!

[This message has been edited by soullace (edited 09-26-2000).]

thanks for the info, good reading there, i stand corrected.

hey n/p, that was the kind of stuff i was reading that made me post my topic to begin with. Gee, how lame our laws have become.