i think that three blind mice makes a solid point. For the Internet to truly flourish, we need reasonable protection for copyrighted works, this is why the copyright was created in the first place: to allow people to profit from their works. However, the current copyright regime is very unreasonable. And, in response, many frustrated internet users have responded in like fashion: unreasonably downloading many copyrighted works paying absolutely nothing.

Neither side is completely in the right here. Artists should expect to be paid aptly for their works. And people should expect that the monopoly power congress gives out should strike a balance that fulfills its mission “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”. I believe the point of the Economists article was that until Congress strikes a more accurate balance, neither side is going to act reasonably.

So am I, multiple-personally-dissociative-rodent.

What I am NOT down with is people getting paid over and over and over and over again for the same transaction.

Or people getting paid for work they didn’t do, where collective copyright regimes exist.

Or people’s great-grandchildren getting paid for work they didn’t do, where overlong copyright exists.

Or the public paying, again, for work that was created for reasons other than those which copyright supposedly protects, where government copyright exists.

We need sound copyright, not more copyright. The two are not the same.

Pay creators. But don’t overpay them. And don’t reward sloth or genetics with copyright law.

Just an author, our comments are meant to challenge, not to offend. (and btw the proper pronoun is “their” – our online identity is plural.)

this thread is so far off topic that we hesitate to stray further from the wainscotting, but since the original post was a non seqitur about reducing the copyright term contained in an article about the unanimous defeat of grokster, et al. by the Economist, non seqituring we will go.

you say you “make your living creating intellectual property.” this is an interesting statement. most authors (and artists) make their living by, ahem, selling “intellectual property.” as frank zappa observed, the music industry is about creating something from nothing and selling it.

it is not P2P technology per se that is the problem, it is the irresponsible use of such technology. it is grokster and morpheus creating networks that encourage and induce the theft of intellectual property. it is the people on this board who spend more time defending pirates and piracy than promoting the responsible use of technology and searching for ways that P2P can be used to ENFORCE copyright instead of subverting it.

it seems to us that – except for pornography – the internet is largely devoid of legal copyrighted material. the rich content of movies, music, books, photographs and articles that the consuming public obviously wants are not being made available legally, because the downloading generation does not respect copyright, they do not respect that artists and authors and photographers should be paid when they enjoy the fruits of their labours. these greedy, amoral “consumers” are aided and abetted by a technology culture that does not either respect copyright, nor the artists that create the content they so desperately want.

until the people on this board arrive at the inescapable conclusion that copyright is sine qua non to the digital age and until they support measures that will provide effective protection and enforcement of copyright, the internet will never achieve its potential.

you, our dear friends and not the evil media corporations are the ones responsible for stifling innovation and creating a culture of greed and irresponsibility. you are the ones who are killing P2P – not the RIAA, not the MPAA, not the US congress. the RIAA does not want to kill technology – the only antiquated business model they want to preserve is making money. if they could make money from distributing their content over P2P, they would become its biggest promoter.

if the pursuit of profit is offensive to you, then of course, no agreement can ever be reached and you will eventually be crushed under the wheels of market economy.

sorry if we offend you, but the three blind mice are down with seeing people get paid for their work. pity we seem to be the only ones who are.

Does the P2P world mean I have to change how I operate? Yes. That’s the nature of technology. Always has been, always will be. You adapt or die. I’m having fun adapting. I do NOT want to hold back technology just so I can personally benefit a little more under the old model.

A regime that creates property rights without property owners, as over-long copyright does, is based neither in the market economy nor in reality.

as usual rob meyers, you ignore the fact that it is copyright that forms the essential relationship between artists and authors and the corporate boogeyman. unless strong and enforceable copyright is assignable to “media companies,” artists and authors have no market power and will never be properly compensated for their efforts. there is no utopia.

copyright, rob meyers, is based on reality of the market economy.

we understand your desire to portray your opponent as a nameless, faceless, and greedy corporate giant, but ignoring the little person at the other end who will be also be destroyed by your cultural revolution reminds us of the tired rhetoric of the last century.

as mao observed, “idealism is the easiest thing in the world, because people can talk as much nonsense as they like without basing it on objective reality or having it tested against reality.”

All of the broadband connected world uses P2P. I would like to suggest it is the entire SCOTUS who are out of touch with reality.