Ethics and Piracy

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon


The history of the music business is other people making money from the work of artists because of copyright.

Copyright exists solely to provide an incentive to for people create useful or intrinsically valuable ideas. It does not exist to allow corporations to hoard IP and seek perpetual rents from the public.

That's one reason why copyright is supposed to expire. But the current trend is towards extending it perpetually in order to seek rents from the public when the creator and his immediate descendants are long dead.

If you were arguing only for shortening copyrights, (like Disney and the 70 year old mouse ) or justifying DLing of old works, youd be persuasive. In fact i suspect the majority of DL's are of works that are made within the last 10 years, if not the last year, by living creators.

You're correct that technological solutions to protect IP will have negative effects. That sounds like blaming conventional property laws for the inconveniences associated with locks, etc. If IP were protected by LEGAL enforcement, or better yet by the MORALITY of would be downloaders (remember this started out as an ethics thread) then these techs wouldnt be necessary. just as in places where there is left theft people dont lock their doors. And yet retain their property rights. I blame the thieves.

[General Ludd]

Why do some people seem to think that musicians and programmers wouldn't be geting any money if it where not for intellectual property laws? Seems like a pretty silly notion to me.

If you make something people like, and ask for money (not demand) , you'll get it. Infact, there are alot of authors, programers, musicians, and artists of all kinds that are happy to see their work freely distributed, and anything that they get out of it is merely a bonus.


EDIT: Of course, this doesn't help the 'pop industry' - hollywood or game publishers/developers that release pieces of unoriginal garbage one after the other.

[Ned]

No one owns a wild animal. Pierson v. Post, a very early Supreme Court case. One must control the animal or tame it to own it.

Releasing music into the public domain is like releasing a wild animal into the forest. You lose control and for that reason you lose ownership.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
I was under the impression that this happened all the time, please tell me where I'm wrong (and I would love to read up on it). This is an adhesion contract, but those are generally upheld so long as they are not unconsionable or unclear. And as you probably know, many types of adhesion contracts are upheld, such as forum selection clauses for cruise lines, etc.

I am not familiar with your example. A quick search reveals the following reference.

The results reveal that the problem posed by standard form contracts is widespread and the solutions are surprisingly uniform. Generally, every jurisdiction forbids the enforcement of unfair, unconscionable or unreasonable contract clauses. The definition of the triad "unfair, unconscionable or unreasonable" also tends to be the same: an oppressive term, a term taking unfair advantage of the other party and so on.

The following is another link

Procedural and substantive unconscionability must both be present in order for a court to exercise its discretion to refuse to enforce a contract or clause under the doctrine of unconscionability. The more substantively oppressive the contract term, the less evidence of procedural unconscionability is required to come to the conclusion that the term is unenforceable, and vice versa

This pretty much indicates that EULA and similar contracts are not enforcable.

[Urban Ranger]

Whaleboy,

That's consequential at best. In other words, I download something, or receive a piece of random information that is my business, and that prevents me from buying a CD. Am I going to be forced into HMV and obliged at gunpoint to buy a CD?

Well no, but it seems to me that it is also unethical to retain said information if the originator of this information expects payment for it.

I think not. The situation there is analogous to car magazines recommending one
car or slamming another.

Not exactly, unless you acquire a piece of software, say, just for the purpose of evaluation.

But the copyright is irrelevant. They do not reside in a personal domain like a house or a PC, nor are they directed private communications (me -> a specified individual or individual).

Surely you jest? Just because somebody leaves something out in the public does not mean it is ethical to take it for yourself.

Besides, the term "public domain" does have a very specific meaning as regards to copyrightable material such as music and books.

If I publicise something, it is published me -> unknown individuals that want it.

Not necessarily. You can do so for the purpose of laying ownship claim to it, e.g. teams of scientists race to get research papers published.

As a condition of that, as I have control over the convenience, I make them pay. That need not be the case. The fact that I release it like that makes it public domain.

You can release a work into public domain -- however this does not mean all pieces of work released are put into public domain.

This leads to the conclusion that the publishing industry has been living on borrowed time since it started, waiting for a means of cheap replication that bypasses their ability to control the information by the production of its means of communication, or the illegitimate notion of copyrights.

The advent of the Internet threatens to do away with the middleman - "publishing industry" as it were. However, I don't see how that renders the notion of copyright illegitimate. You have to realise copyrightable materials are not just about information, they are about creativity.

[Ned]

Broadcasters typically say something like this,

This broadcast is intended for the private, non comercial use of our audience.

This statement implies that private copying is authorized. Even if it were not authorized, we know that private non commercial copying "fair use" under the Supreme Court's Betamax case.

The Supremes had to do what they did in Betamax, otherwise they would choke off a promising new technology, the VCR. If faced with the same case again, but this time with music on computers being shared through the internet, the Supremes would make the same choice again. There is no practical way to enforce copyright against individuals who are simply sharing and who are not conducting a business. To authorize such suits may hobble the growith in technology or authorize massive invasions of privacy.

Implicit in the copyright law is the thought that one is trying to prevent copying by a commercial rival. It is the commercial nature of the copying that causes the most harm. But is also the effectiveness of the legal remedies that channels the law in this direction.

What the music industry is doing to today is like swimming upstream. They will not be able to keep the effort up for long. What they need to do is retihink the paradigm entirely.

[Ned]

dp

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
This pretty much indicates that EULA and similar contracts are not enforcable.

US courts have upheld EULAs. I direct you to ProCD v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) which held that shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless contrary to law or unconscionable. See also: Hill v. Gateway 2000, Inc. 105 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 1997) (where the contract was held to be valid even though it was never closely read). For clickwrap license see: Hotmail Corp. v. Van Money Pie, Inc., 1998 WL 388389 (N.D.Cal.)

I pulled this information from http://www.unc.edu/courses/pre2000fa...ng01/cases.htm


A sidenote, while you can void a contract, including EULAs for unconscionability, its rarely a successful defense.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's correct. EULA are generally enforcable under US law. Any Contracts casebook can tell you that .

[Urban Ranger]

funky dp

[Urban Ranger]

Actually no, or else there would be no need for UCITA.

link

US court ruling nixes software EULA sales restrictions

EULA benchmark restrictions ruled invalid

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Actually no, or else there would be no need for UCITA.

Please explain what you mean.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
US court ruling nixes software EULA sales restrictions

This invalidates only the part of a EULA that restricts the reselling of merchandise. It doesn't touch anything else. Basically it means that you can give or sell the software cd to someone else, like any other piece of property. It doesn't mean that you can retain a copy for yourself. Do you see the distinction? In your case the part of the EULA at issue is contradictory to public policy, ie the right to transfer property. In the cases I cited, the part of the EULA at stake was more directly related to copyright law.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
EULA benchmark restrictions ruled invalid

In this case, the plaintiff was suing by claiming the EULA was violated due to reviewing and benchmarking of their product. The court held that such a ban on reviews constitutes censorship. Basically if you buy a product, you ought to be able to test it and criticize it.


So at the end of the day what do we have? We have EULAs being upheld unless they contain language that violates public policy. And then, only that part of the language is severed, the rest of the EULA remains intact (meaning one bit of language doesn't invalidate the whole thing and you can do what you want with the product, reverse engineer, etc) Such violations of PP include limitations on historical property rights, the right to transfer and dispose of property, and the right to crticize publicly property that you have purchased. Other acts, such as reverse engineering the product or mass copying of a product will be held to be a violation of the EULA, and thus liable for damages.

As this is a continually evolving field, much is changing. Personally I agree with all of the cited rulings, both mine and yours. Software companies need to get slapped around a bit for infringing upon the historical rights of its customers. EULAs at first were incredibly restrictive, but now are becoming more and more like regular contracts, ie susceptible to defenses such as the ones mentioned above

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
That's correct. EULA are generally enforcable under US law. Any Contracts casebook can tell you that .

Imran, as UR points out, they are enforceable only to the extent they are unconscionable. When they go to far, such as to prevent resales where the initial transaction has all the earmarks of a sale, I would bet that most courts would hold such provisions unenforceable.

Thus UCITA -- that failed.

[Ned]

Asleep at the wheel, the very purpose of an end-user license agreement is to impose postsale use restrictions on the purchaser. In almost every case where such postsale use restrictions have been tested in courts they had been found to be in violation of public policy and have not been enforced. So the extent that end user license agreements might be considered enforceable is the extent to which they are consistent with the traditional law of sales of goods.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Ned
Imran, as UR points out, they are enforceable only to the extent they are unconscionable. When they go to far, such as to prevent resales where the initial transaction has all the earmarks of a sale, I would bet that most courts would hold such provisions unenforceable.

no, EULAs are unenforceable to the extent that they are unconscionable. conscionable (if that's a word)= EULA stands. unconscionable=EULA falls (more specifically that part of the EULA is severed from the rest of the agreement)


I believe I addressed the rest of your points above.