Windows Vista DRM:

[necrovore]

This is entirely false. Either you accept the concept of intellectual property, or you don't. If you accept the concept of intellectual property, then you acknowledge that you do not own the IP, and that you may not by right copy it. The owner may allow you to copy it, in which case he can set the terms for allowed copying. If you reject the concept of IP, then your statement is incoherent, because you would in fact believe that it is perfectly acceptable for an IP thief to steal someone's music or book and mass-produce it, giving it away or selling it at whatever rate you want, with no restrictions. Since you claim that there is a context where theft of IP is improper, you cannot reject the concept of IP.

It does not matter one iota if you steal goods for profit, for public use, or your own use. You can only claim a right to something you own, and you do not own the right to copy another person's creation. Thus a law prohibiting you from stealing that which is by right the property of another person is not a violation of your rights, it is a protection if his rights.

Your comments on RAID technology is completely irrelevant.

I think what we have here are two different concepts of IP and a question of which one to accept. Both concepts permit only the copyright owner to make copies for others, and to do so on terms of his own choice (including that he may choose not to do so at all). Neither concept permits any escape from contract rights; if you make an unambiguous promise, you're bound to it. But your concept allows the copyright owner to control copying as such, whereas mine allows him to control copying only in a social context. Since rights as such only apply in a social context, I think my concept is on firmer ground.

When you call something "stealing" you are presupposing your own definition of property and therefore doing nothing to defend that definition.

[DavidOdden]

When you call something "stealing" you are presupposing your own definition of property and therefore doing nothing to defend that definition.

I will direct you to the writings of Ayn Rand, especially in Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal, for extensive justification of her definition of property, and intellectual property. What non-Objectivist theory of property are you assuming, which defines property contradictorily? What justifies your definition over hers?

[DavidV]

And that's what ALL of these estimates are--rough--because no one really knows for sure WHAT Vista will require.

I've been using Windows Vista since the early betas, and I DO know.

One fact I can share with you about Vista is that my friend, who is one of the beta testers, observed that when viewing my webcam on his machine with Vista, it used 100% of the CPU, while when that same machine was booted into xp, the CPU load was only 7% when viewing my webcam.

That's nonsense. I also have a webcam which has trouble with Vista - but it's because few manufactures have 100% Vista compatible drivers. This has nothing to do with DRM whatsoever. Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

We are only making wild speculations

You are the one making them - and it's known as "slander"

When someone mentions any numbers, it's a good idea to take it with a grain of salt. Remember, 58% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Yes, that's called lying, and people are banned for that here. I'm not going to warn you again.

[Seeker]

If you want to argue that CD players are infringing devices, you'd need to argue that it creates a "material object" which is "fixed".

Okay, this I understand. Before I thought that a CD player's buffer created a copy, but since it is not "fixed", the correct conclusion is that the buffer contents is not a copy. That's the distinction I needed, and I accept it.

[necrovore]

[W]hat the copyright or patent protects is not the physical object as such, but the idea which it embodies. By forbidding an unauthorized reproduction of the object, the law declares, in effect, that the physical labor of copying is not the source of the object's value, that the value is created by the originator of the idea and may not be used without his consent; thus the law establishes the right of a mind to that which it has brought into existence.

Ayn Rand first published her essay "Patents and Copyrights" in May 1964. At the time she was concerned with defending copyright from collectivists, which she did most effectively. The reference to physical labor is clearly a reference to Marxism: Marxists claimed that physical labor was the only source of value. Today, no physical labor is necessary to make a copy anymore, so it's even more clear that copying doesn't create value.

She could not have anticipated the need to make a distinction between copying a work for oneself, a work that one has already paid for, and copying the work to others who have not paid for it. Given the technology of the time, there was no practical reason to make copies for oneself. She could not have anticipated the copying of CDs onto an iPod. It simply wouldn't have occurred to her. Why would it have?

Making a copy for another person gives that person access to the work and thus creates value for them. This value has not been created by the copy-giver, though, but by the original creator of the idea, so it is proper that he should be legally entitled to compensation. But when you make a copy for yourself of a work you have already paid for, the only reason to do so would be some new technology or device, and it is the creators of the device who have created the value. That is precisely the value they are offering when they sell you their device, and so it is yours. (The same thing holds if you build the device yourself.)

New technology does not change our rights. It does sometimes require us to answer a question that had never been raised before. The distinction between copying for oneself and copying for others had not been made at the time Ayn Rand wrote her essay, or at the time she wrote Atlas Shrugged; it did not need to be made. Now it does.

She could not have anticipated that copyright holders would attempt to use their copyrights to stamp out new technology. The idea that Objectivism would sanction suing virtually all iPod owners for infringement, and Apple for contributory infringement, is particularly horrid.

I cannot say for sure whether Ayn Rand would have agreed with me. But if she did not, I would have liked to hear her reasoning.

Edited February 11, 2007 by necrovore

[Seeker]

But necrovore, the important principle is that the creator of the music has the right to control its spread through copying, and thereby control the product of his mind. This hasn't changed at all since 1964. In offering his mind and music to the world, the creator spreads value, but only to the extent that he chooses in voluntary trade. In making an additional copy for yourself, you are spreading the product of his mind further (only a bit further perhaps, but still further) than he chose to allow. Now, maybe you could convince him, with your argument, that doing so would be in his rational self-interest. He might even agree. But it is still his right to decide the extent of his music's spread via copying, not yours. The way he chose to implement that control (in the case of a typical music CD) is by reference to the federal copyright laws.

As to new technology, the current law reserves to the author the right to make copies (with some exceptions). If a particular act of copying is illegal (and by extension, immoral under the terms of trade by which you acquired your copy) yet for some reason necessary, then the law can be changed. The creator might not like the change, but he didn't specify his own terms when he sold you the copy, he referenced copyright law, whatever it happens to be. That law might be friendly to his IP, but it might also be hostile to it. That's the risk he took in choosing to invoke copyright law as the terms of his deal with you.

So what we need is evidence to support the idea that the creators are okay with spreading their mind-product a bit further, to the iPod, either by reference to their own statements or actions or to federal law. I think the RIAA's FAQ statement lends some support to that conclusion, there is some potentially supportive (though not controlling) ideas in case law and legislative history, and Kendall's de facto circumstances idea, which acknowledges the realities of the digital media revolution, shows how acceptance of this extension is in the interests of the creators. But violating the rights of the creators to their mind-product to facilitate technological progress for ourselves would simply be immoral.

[necrovore]

Seeker, this is incorrect for a number of reasons.

If I copy a piece of music I have paid for to an iPod I have paid for, I am not "spreading" the idea at all. To whom am I spreading it? Not one additional person gains access to the idea as a result of this copying.

Maybe it is illegal. If so, the law is unjust. The only additional value I would gain from copying a CD to my iPod is value created by the makers of the iPod -- Apple. The record companies do not create any further value as the result of my using an iPod. I paid for all of the value I received from the record companies when I bought the first copy. And if they create further value, by producing new songs that I would like to have, then I will gladly pay for that.

The statement that "Unauthorized copying of this recording is prohibited by Federal law" is merely an observation, not a contract term. It doesn't say "By buying this recording you agree not to make any copies, not even for personal use." It doesn't even say "By buying this recording you agree to observe Federal law." The latter agreement would not be necessary; by law, I am required to abide by law even if they don't say so; if something is against the law, prohibiting it in a contract would only lead to a "me too" lawsuit.

If record companies want to use the law to make money by forcing a person to buy the same music over and over, even though he really only received value from them the first time he bought it, and if they intend to do it by law instead of by contract, then it is they who are stealing, and they are using the government as a means to do it. They are stealing from the makers of new technology, from the people who create new ways for people to enjoy the music they already own.

Of course the record companies would never agree to give up this stealing. It's free loot for them.

[Seeker]

Perhaps "terms of trade" was a misstatement of what the copyright symbol means; more like, the right, which exists anyways, is being explicitly emphasized at the point of trade.

It is emphatically not true, however, that you gain no further value from your additional copy. If that were true, then why bother making the copy? Because of course it is a value to you.

To reiterate you are not buying the music over and over, because you are not buying the music, but only one copy of the music. Your rejection of that distinction is leading you into a greater thicket of misunderstanding.

[necrovore]

Seeker,

The question is not that I am receiving a value, the question is whom the value is coming from, and who therefore deserves the compensation for it. When I buy a piece of music -- which I did not possess before -- the value is coming from the record company. But when I transfer music to an iPod, the value I receive from such a copy is coming from the iPod, not from the record company anymore. (Clearly it is not coming from the physical labor of copying, either.) It is Apple that made that value possible, and I paid Apple when I bought the iPod. Do you understand? I am not gaining anything from the record company when I copy music I have already bought to an iPod.

Edited February 11, 2007 by necrovore

[RationalBiker]

To reiterate you are not buying the music over and over, because you are not buying the music, but only one copy of the music. Your rejection of that distinction is leading you into a greater thicket of misunderstanding.

Your assessment is generous. It appears to me that he doesn't even recognize the concept of copyright to be legitimate at all. Even worse, now he's totally subverted the logic involved in this issue in trying to argue that "the record companies" are the thieves.

This leads me to question why he would buy CD's at all if he had to do business with those he declares to be "thieves".

[necrovore]

It appears to me that he doesn't even recognize the concept of copyright to be legitimate at all.

But I wrote earlier:

I think what we have here are two different concepts of IP and a question of which one to accept.

Please read my posts, and don't take me out of context. Thanks.

[RationalBiker]

Please read my posts, and don't take me out of context. Thanks.

I have and I didn't.

Additionally, your most recent rationalization regarding who's providing and who's recieving value doesn't logically stop at you putting a purchased copy of the music on your iPod. Rather, it extends to you providing value to your friend by giving them a copy. Since you provided the value by providing them a copy, by your logic you deserve the compensation at that point because the value they recieved came from you. This is, in my mind, all non-sequitur. The ethical issued involved is what rights you bought when you purchased the CD and that right does not include making multiple copies unless you can explain how it's "fair use" or how such right has been granted by the copy rights holder.

As Seeker properly pointed out, you are not buying the music, you are buying a copy of the music. The point of contention is that you are claiming you have rights that were not granted at the time of sale and basically denying that the artist or record company has any "copy right".

[necrovore]

I have and I didn't.

Additionally, your most recent rationalization regarding who's providing and who's recieving value doesn't logically stop at you putting a purchased copy of the music on your iPod. Rather, it extends to you providing value to your friend by giving them a copy. Since you provided the value by providing them a copy, by your logic you deserve the compensation at that point because the value they recieved came from you. This is, in my mind, all non-sequitur.

That is incorrect. It is the creator of the value that deserves the compensation, not the "provider." That's what I meant by "coming from." If I give someone else a copy of a work I didn't create, then I am not the one who created the value they are receiving. That's why, if I do it without the permission of the creator of the work, it's wrong. Here's where I said it before:

Making a copy for another person gives that person access to the work and thus creates value for them. This value has not been created by the copy-giver, though, but by the original creator of the idea, so it is proper that he should be legally entitled to compensation.

Now back to you:

The ethical issued involved is what rights you bought when you purchased the CD and that right does not include making multiple copies unless you can explain how it's "fair use" or how such right has been granted by the copy rights holder.

As Seeker properly pointed out, you are not buying the music, you are buying a copy of the music. The point of contention is that you are claiming you have rights that were not granted at the time of sale and basically denying that the artist or record company has any "copy right".

I am distinguishing between copies in a social context -- copies made for other people -- and copies one makes privately for oneself. Rights only apply in a social context. Copyright means that the copyright owner has the exclusive right to make copies for other people. Here's where I said that before:

[Y]our concept allows the copyright owner to control copying as such, whereas mine allows him to control copying only in a social context. Since rights as such only apply in a social context, I think my concept is on firmer ground.

Why can't a copyright owner control copies one makes for oneself, in the absence of a contract where one agrees to grant him that control? Because that copying is private, i.e., it is done outside of a social context, and because any information processing device, including the brain, has to make copies in order to operate. You are already making copies; there are copies of this post on your retinas and in your brain. It is metaphysically given that copying is necessary for information processing; it is metaphysically given that information processing is necessary for human survival. Therefore, making copies for oneself, outside of a social context, is a natural right, as a corollary of the right to think. And you can employ devices outside your brain as thinking and memory aids. As I said it before:

The right to property includes the right to own one's own body and the right to own one's own machines. Any information-processing device -- and the brain and the sense organs are information-processing devices -- has to make copies in order to operate at all. That much is metaphysically given. And from that I conclude that you have the right to make such copies, for yourself, as an aspect of your own survival, unless you negotiate it away, which you are within your rights to do.

Copying for oneself is no more an infringement of the copyright owner's rights than is memorizing.

Edited February 11, 2007 by necrovore

[DavidOdden]

Copyright means that the copyright owner has the exclusive right to make copies for other people.

Again with the falsehoods. This is not what copyright means. The owner of copyright has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

You just made up this "for other people" nonsense. The word "exclusive" means that the copyright owner, and no other person, has this right.

[necrovore]

Again with the falsehoods. This is not what copyright means.

Again you're using the man-made as a reference instead of the metaphysically given.

The question here isn't one of what is actually legal but one of what ought to be legal. Law is based on politics, which is based on ethics, which is a branch of philosophy.

You have to derive rights from the facts of reality somehow. That's what "natural rights" means.

It is not enough to claim that it clashes with existing laws, since laws are man-made and could have been made incorrectly.

Edited February 11, 2007 by necrovore

[DavidOdden]

Again you're using the man-made as a reference instead of the metaphysically given.

I'm afraid I can't figure out what you mean. Are you saying that rights in general and copyright in specific are metaphysically given and are not man-made? I'd be interested to see the details of this new theory.

[necrovore]

I'm afraid I can't figure out what you mean. Are you saying that rights in general and copyright in specific are metaphysically given and are not man-made? I'd be interested to see the details of this new theory.

Well, the general idea is not new; I am trying to say the same thing as OPAR chapter 10:

ince they are not primaries, man's rights require proof through the appropriate process of reduction. In the Objectivist approach, the nature of such reduction is readily apparent. Each of man's rights has a specific source in the Objectivist ethics and, beneath that, in the Objectivist view of man's metaphysical nature (which in turn rests on the Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology). Man is a certain kind of living organism—which leads to his need of morality and to man's life being the moral standard—which leads to the right to act by the guidance of this standard, i.e., the right to life. ... Unlike animals, man does not survive by adjusting to the given—which leads to productiveness being a cardinal virtue—which leads to the right to keep, use, and dispose of the things one has produced, i.e., the right to property.

Peikoff also validates the rights of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Copyright obviously is a more particular right, but I think it has to be validated in the same manner:

The rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness are the only rights treated by philosophical politics. They are the only rights formulated in terms of broad abstractions and resting directly on universal ethical principles. The numerous applications and implementations of these rights, such as freedom of the press or trial by jury or the other prerogatives detailed in the Bill of Rights, belong to the field of philosophy of law and require for their validation a process of reduction to man's philosophic rights.

In particular I am trying to apply a "process of reduction" to copyright, to determine what basis there is for it in reality. Copyright has to have, in metaphysical reality, a basis for existing. If not, it becomes a false or arbitrary claim. I think I have identified a proper basis and I think I've already posted it:

Making a copy for another person gives that person access to the work and thus creates value for them. This value has not been created [i.e. produced] by the copy-giver, though, but by the original creator of the idea, so it is proper that he should be legally entitled to compensation. But when you make a copy for yourself of a work you have already paid for, the only reason to do so would be some new technology or device, and it is the creators of the device who have created [i.e. produced] the value. That is precisely the value they are offering when they sell you their device, and so it is yours. (The same thing holds if you build the device yourself.)

If I'm wrong, then I'd like to see what a proper reduction looks like.

[Cogito]

If I'm wrong, then I'd like to see what a proper reduction looks like.

Copyright stems from the fact that man has the right to the fruits of his labor. That right means he can sell those fruits under any terms he so chooses. If he chooses to sell them under the terms that you cannot make a copy, that is his right.

[necrovore]

Copyright stems from the fact that man has the right to the fruits of his labor. That right means he can sell those fruits under any terms he so chooses. If he chooses to sell them under the terms that you cannot make a copy, that is his right.

True, but the seller has to set his terms at the time of sale. The record companies made it clear at the time of sale that they were reserving what rights they had, but they did not state that they wanted buyers to give up their right to make copies for their own personal use. I bought some of my CDs in the late 80s, and even then people copied CDs to cassette tape to play in the car. This was commonplace, and I am pretty sure it was legal at the time, and the record companies knew it was commonplace, and they did not try to introduce contract terms to ask people not to do it. Now they're trying to change the law to change their contracts after the fact. That amounts to a violation of contract rights. Suing iPod owners and suing Apple amounts to using the government to seize property.

[DavidOdden]

In particular I am trying to apply a "process of reduction" to copyright, to determine what basis there is for it in reality.

I would then suggest letting go of the misguided idea that rights are metaphysical. Try reading Virtue of Selfishness, focusing on those chapters on rights, and Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal, to get an understanding of the concept "rights". Your goal should be to get to the point of understanding the patents and copyright article. The law recognizes the copyright-owner's rights, which are strong as they are with all property rights, and allows the owner the option of assertion weaker rights. Also try reading the GNU GPL to see how it works, since it is based on this strong property rights foundation with an added layer of permissions on top.

[necrovore]

I would then suggest letting go of the misguided idea that rights are metaphysical. Try reading Virtue of Selfishness, focusing on those chapters on rights, and Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal, to get an understanding of the concept "rights". Your goal should be to get to the point of understanding the patents and copyright article. The law recognizes the copyright-owner's rights, which are strong as they are with all property rights, and allows the owner the option of assertion weaker rights. Also try reading the GNU GPL to see how it works, since it is based on this strong property rights foundation with an added layer of permissions on top.

The validity of rights must be established by reference to reality. Rights are concepts, and have to be based on reality in order to be objective. Why would you say this is misguided? What is the proper guidance, then? What are you claiming rights are based on? I am not suggesting they are intrinsic, or subjective. Humans must perform the processes of logic necessary to identify rights. As far as my abstract method, I am only claiming what is already in OPAR.

I have read The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism The Unknown Ideal already, and I think I understand them quite well. Nothing in them, to my knowledge, contradicts my interpretation of rights in general or of copyright in particular. I have outlined the logical derivation of my idea; you haven't outlined yours; you've only told me to read books I've already read and accused me, without evidence, of "misunderstanding" them. Just because you disagree with my conclusions doesn't mean my conclusions are wrong. In fact, the more I read the silly objections people are throwing at me, over and over, the more I see people accusing me of holding positions that I do not actually hold and that are not logically necessitated by my position, the more I think that my argument is actually quite sound.

If no one can show me why I am wrong, I must be right.

P.S. The GPL can't prove anything about an abstract theory of rights. It has to be written in such a way as to stand up under existing law.

Edited February 11, 2007 by necrovore

[DavidOdden]

If no one can show me why I am wrong, I must be right.

Yes, of course. I see this now. See 'ya.

[necrovore]

If no one can show me why I am wrong, I must be right.

Yes, of course. I see this now. See 'ya.

Ok, ok, I see your point: I have to do my own thinking on this matter and you are not obligated to do it for me, nor can you.

Sorry.

[KendallJ]

Depriving people, without their informed consent, of the right to process information -- information that they have bought and paid for -- can harm their lives.

But you see, this is circular. That is why I asked the question about "from scratch". "Bought and paid for" assumes the right you are trying to induce from reality. In that case you are no different from your supposed claim that Odden is relying on the law. You are too. If you really are trying to come from reality, then you would have to show that such terms would arise before the first transaction. Right now you are assuming that such terms were present in the first transaction and relying on its legality to demand that they be present in the "information processing" transaction.

It doesn't make any difference from a rights perspective whether a man does the analysis in his brain or builds a machine to help with part of it. (Even in the present, people can have hearing aids implanted in their skulls. The machine is helping these people process sensory information. And someday they'll add a few megs of flash memory and a record/playback feature.) No one should be able, without his consent, to impose requirements on what kinds of processing, what kinds of thinking, he can do.

So you are trying to make the case that computing power is somehow now incorporated as part of man's consciousness? This is the same mistake. This is somehow demanding that it's your right that food be available to you in the grocery store, without acknowledging the rights of the traders who got it there for you. Again, you make your hearing aid from scratch, and you're good to go. What is not metaphysically given is not yours by natural right!

You're also still haven't answered that even if you're right to "processing power" exists, then why does that give you a right to make a personal copy of my song? This doesn't even follow from the first, yet you simply connect them out of thin air.

Edited February 12, 2007 by KendallJ

[Seeker]

Necrovore,

Copyright protects a creator's expression of a particular intellectual work, and reproduction is expression. By reproducing the creator's work, you have expressed those particulars that belong to him alone, that only he, as the creator of the work, may rightly express. You have denied to him the right to be the only person who expresses himself by doing so yourself.

The artist, in conceiving a work of art, necessarily draws upon his own unique identity and intellectual effort. His conception becomes a concretized value when it is outwardly expressed, as in a written composition, a painting, an audio recording etc. Creation of a fixed, material object containing the artist's work is expression of that work. The particular aspects generated by the creator within that concretization is a value. As its creator he is exclusively entitled to that value.

Your assertion that the right is one of access is incorrect. Access is not the issue; expression of something particular is. No one can rightly express the creator but the creator, and no one may rightly derive value from the essential particulars of his expression except him.

Your argument that the device creates the value is also incorrect. The value you gained was in your unauthorized expression of his intellectual work. By using your computer to reproduce the particulars of his work, you violated his right to be the sole person to express them.

Rights do exist in a social context, and that context is everyone in the society. That includes you even in the privacy of your own home. The exclusive right to expression does not vanish when you are by yourself. You are still violating the creator's right. You are still not entitled to express that which is rightfully his, and no one else's, to express.

Edited February 13, 2007 by Seeker