ROFL, WTF??

Ok, I made a flippant answer, sorry. Getting carried away in the debate.

Still, as far as i can see the only mechanism that copyright provides to incentivise creating is the financial one.
It’s primary stated function might not be to compensate creators, but that’s how it goes about achieving it’s purpose.

And please show me where I do any weird redefining of words?

And the reason I’m arguing copyright from every conceivable angle is that the arguments against it usually try it as well.

I focus on the philosophical angles because imo the arguments against copyright from that pov aren’t really justifiable, all things considered.

Well, to be exact, I don’t find the arguments against copyright justifiable from any angle, since i consider legislation of that kind an absolute necessity for anyone doing creative work.

The details of it can be debated, but that it’s needed is very hard to argue against imo.

Which is what I’m trying to show.

Ironically, the paper actually proposes continued existence of copyright – not my position at all, but it does so on a far more rational and reality-accepting basis than you seem to be capable of. In your zeal to defend your absurd map/territory misconceptions about the nature of things, you even reject positions that ultimately support copyright. Weird.

I’m sorry, but please read through some of the posts (even the long ones) in this section where a lot of the points you make are countered.

The report you linked is basically considered debunked, but i’ll reply to the first myth anyway.

The only mechanism copyright uses to “promote progress of science and the useful arts” is the financial incentive.

There, report debunked.

Copyright, like all our laws and society in general is of course an artifical construct, what is your point?

Conserning the economic harmfulness of it, I’m sorry but there I can’t take your claim that it’s “known to be economically harmful anyway” seriously without you providing some independent peer-reviewed literature on it.

Note that EFF is in no way or form an unbiased source.

About the last part of your statement, read the post (filter newest first and it’s fairly close to the top) where I try to demonstrate that in fact the physical part of the authors work is totally irrelevant to the discussion and that it is in fact the non-physical part of it he has copyright on.

This means that the original author has the moral right to every copy, thus making any moral justification for piracy very shakey.

I.e. making a copy does not mean you’re creating something new and the author infact still has all the same rights to the copied work as before.
Hence the word COPYright.

What impossibilities would that be?

https://www.eff.org/document/rsc-report-three-myths-about-copyright-law

Copyright is for “promoting progress of science and the useful arts” (which turns out it basically fails at), and it’s a completely artificial construct. And plain idiotic and now known to be economically harmful anyway, never mind morally what with all the surveillance and privacy invasion and whatnot.

Anyway, in reality, a creator creates only his copies, not all copies (unless he hasn’t published and thus has all existing copies). Sure, he has a right to his actual physical work results – but that is physical, the copies HE created. If he wants to be paid (not that he’s owed anything, remember, it is his choice to invest resources to create his copies), he can certainly charge for the service of authorship or charge for release. If he doesn’t want a copy he made copied further by others (with their own resources, owing him nothing,), he just shouldn’t publish.

You have to believe at least two impossibilities to misinterpret the way you do, probably more.

That’s the point I was getting at. Why should that be criminal while copyright infringement is civil?
The fact that copyright infirngment is a civil offence makes small indie producers disadvantaged when it comes to protecting their rights.

HADOPI solved that by making infringement a new petty criminal offence.

Considering the relatively few convictions of HADOPI while still showing effect makes it a relatively unoppressing law. Seems to me more than 10% of those first warnings have to reach the right adress.

They attempt to solve the burden of proof problem with making everyone responsible for their router. The warnings serve to alert the owner of the router that something is going on.
The conviction everyone writes about was in fact made with the man’s router.

I’m not 100% content with that solution, but it is admittedly somewhat like holding the owner of a car responsible if he knowingly gives use of his car to someone DUI.
Maybe it’s time to accept that the internet isn’t necessarily a harmless toy.

Anyway, if it’s so easy to circumvent, then it really doesn’t matter. The only difference will be that people are committing a petty criminal offence instead of a civil one. The effect of HADOPI will then also over time be possible to show as converging with the control group.

If it isn’t, and the method will lead to numerous innocent people (from the pov of router responsibility) being convicted (which so far doesn’t seem to be the case), what technical alternatives do you suggest?

Re: copyright

The only mechanism copyright uses to encourage creation is the financial incentive.
It’s not only about getting the existing creators to keep creating but also to give new creators an incentive.
Few things more motivating (apart from the ego aspect) than the fact that if you’d create a very popular product you could be seeing an income stream for the rest of your life.

And imo everyone expects their kids to have the rights to the stuff they leave behind.
The value of it might be taxed, but few argue that a kid shouldn’t be allowed to inherit their parent’s house for instance.

Prices of physical media are pressed because they compete with digital media and prices of digital products are pressed because they compete with free unauthorized distribution (piracy).
Basic economics.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=radiohead#/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_0_37?url=search-alias%3Dpopular&field-keywords=darren+hayman+and+the+long+parliament+-+the+violence&sprefix=darren+hayman+and+the+long+parliament%2Caps%2C184&rh=n%3A5174%2Ck%3Adarren+hayman+and+the+long+parliament+-+the+violence

Amazon link to one new release on spotify. 9.99 / month for that and a legion more. 8.99 for a download album. Cheapest physical option is 14.81 (all prices in dollars).
Cheapest offer for the physical cd in euros is 11.57 on amazon.de

I’m not sure where you live and what cd pricing has been there, but where I live cds used to cost as much as 19-20 euros in the early to mid 90′s. (Actual prices at the time in finnish marks, with the exchange rate 5.94573)
Factor in the effects of 20 years of inflation on that and the prices of cds are definitely down.

I’m sorry, what part of there being ads on torrentsites and ad agencies to get the ads placed there is unsubstantiated?