Copyright in Cyberspace - Revision history

Just Johnny: /* Class Discussion */

2012-03-07T20:28:35Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:28, 7 March 2012
Line 91:		Line 91:
	So, it is the responsibility of the website to remove the content, which is mostly protected under the reporting options available to users. In comes in the Viacom and Google case. If someone really wanted to be a prat then they could just ban every upload.		So, it is the responsibility of the website to remove the content, which is mostly protected under the reporting options available to users. In comes in the Viacom and Google case. If someone really wanted to be a prat then they could just ban every upload.

	So, we have to go back to the norms reflected through the architecture and look at the contribution or content being shared. And we have to decide if it is a benefit or a detriment. If it is a benefit, then we may want to include it because it adds to ~~things~~. [[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 17:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)		So, we have to go back to the norms reflected through the architecture and look at the contribution or content being shared. And we have to decide if it is a benefit or a detriment. If it is a benefit, then we may want to include it because it adds to the evolutionary process already taking place. [[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 17:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Just Johnny: /* Class Discussion */

2012-03-07T20:25:35Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:25, 7 March 2012
Line 78:		Line 78:
	It is interesting how things that apply in the real world become born-again in cyberspace. We are now dealing with an entire generation of people who have grown up in a digital age.		It is interesting how things that apply in the real world become born-again in cyberspace. We are now dealing with an entire generation of people who have grown up in a digital age.

	A brand is copyrightable. So you could argue that the architecture of a website is held under copyright. However, the ideas generated within it are like the phone book. For example, Facebook is a website, and the users generate the content. Yet, Facebook attempts to turn relationships into a brand. Users who join and ~~met~~ become Facebook Friends. Facebook Friends are held under the TOS of Facebook. Although, it's not really ~~possible as~~ a cultural norm to regulate friendships or relationships.		A brand is copyrightable. So you could argue that the architecture of a website is held under copyright. However, the ideas generated within it are like the phone book. For example, Facebook is a website, and the users generate the content. Yet, Facebook attempts to turn relationships into a brand. Users who join and meet other users become Facebook Friends. Even if you know this person in the real world, you are now in a virtual existence. Facebook Friends are held under the TOS of Facebook. Although, it's not really a cultural norm yet to regulate friendships or relationships.

	Then there is the element of fair use. As a member of a website, I can publish my work and hold the copyright on it. Although, my ideas may have been generated from the architecture of the website and its users. However, since the ideas are fair use, then anything is fair game.		Then there is the element of fair use. As a member of a website, I can publish my work and hold the copyright on it. Although, my ideas may have been generated from the architecture of the website and its users. However, since the ideas are fair use, then anything is fair game.
Line 92:		Line 92:

	So, we have to go back to the norms reflected through the architecture and look at the contribution or content being shared. And we have to decide if it is a benefit or a detriment. If it is a benefit, then we may want to include it because it adds to things. [[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 17:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)		So, we have to go back to the norms reflected through the architecture and look at the contribution or content being shared. And we have to decide if it is a benefit or a detriment. If it is a benefit, then we may want to include it because it adds to things. [[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 17:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


	I've been waiting for the right time to share this link, I think this is it. Whenever TPB (The pirate bay) gets send a cease and desist letter they post it and their (often funny) response here [http://thepiratebay.se/legal]. (Some replies contain NSFW language). <br>		I've been waiting for the right time to share this link, I think this is it. Whenever TPB (The pirate bay) gets send a cease and desist letter they post it and their (often funny) response here [http://thepiratebay.se/legal]. (Some replies contain NSFW language). <br>

Just Johnny: /* Class Discussion */

2012-03-07T20:21:52Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:21, 7 March 2012
Line 76:		Line 76:
	February 28: Copyright in Cyberspace		February 28: Copyright in Cyberspace

	~~So, I wonder~~ how things that apply in the real world become born-again in cyberspace. ~~Take, for instance a society such as the United States~~ of ~~America. It is a society that is applicable~~ in to a ~~geographic location. The architecture that composes the society, I suppose, could be argued as copyrightable~~.		It is interesting how things that apply in the real world become born-again in cyberspace. We are now dealing with an entire generation of people who have grown up in a digital age.

	~~Now~~, ~~people today grow up as radio listeners~~. So, we are ~~now dealing with an entire generation~~ of ~~people who have grown up in~~ a ~~digital age~~.		A brand is copyrightable. So you could argue that the architecture of a website is held under copyright. However, the ideas generated within it are like the phone book. For example, Facebook is a website, and the users generate the content. Yet, Facebook attempts to turn relationships into a brand. Users who join and met become Facebook Friends. Facebook Friends are held under the TOS of Facebook. Although, it's not really possible as a cultural norm to regulate friendships or relationships.

	A website, as a brand, is copyrightable. On the one end of the spectrum you could argue that the architecture of a club, or a website is held under copyright. However, the ideas generated within it are like the phone book. For example, Facebook is a website, and the users generate the content. Yet, Facebook attempts to turn relationships into a brand, as Facebook Friends. Facebook Friends are held under the TOS of Facebook. Although, it's not really possible as a cultural norm to regulate friendships or relationships that are formed between users.		Then there is the element of fair use. As a member of a website, I can publish my work and hold the copyright on it. Although, my ideas may have been generated from the architecture of the website and its users. However, since the ideas are fair use, then anything is fair game.

	~~So, then~~ there is the element of fair use. As a member of a website, I can publish my work and hold the copyright on it. Although, my ideas may have been generated from the architecture of the website and its users. However, since the ideas are fair use, then anything is fair game.

	So, let's examine this in terms of a service provider:		So, let's examine this in terms of a service provider:
	(a) Transitory Digital Network Communications.— A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider’s transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections ...		(a) Transitory Digital Network Communications.— A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider’s transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections ...
	There is also this element of the service provider. The service provider cannot be held liable for anything. So, there is a round and round aspect involved with content and users when it is posted on a website.
	~~When it comes to the element of content sharing, we really have to determine if the material is held under copyright. And to what degree does it constitute fair use?~~

	In comes in the ~~Viacom and Google case~~.		The service provider cannot be held liable for anything. There is a loop aspect generated with content and users when it is posted on a website.

			When it comes to the element of content sharing, we really have to determine if the material is held under copyright.

	So, it is the responsibility of the website to remove the content, which is mostly protected under the reporting options available to users. If someone really wanted to be a prat then they could just ban every upload. So, we have to go back to the norms reflected through the architecture and look at the contribution. And we have to decide if it is a benefit or a detriment. [[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 17:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)		So, it is the responsibility of the website to remove the content, which is mostly protected under the reporting options available to users. In comes in the Viacom and Google case. If someone really wanted to be a prat then they could just ban every upload.

			So, we have to go back to the norms reflected through the architecture and look at the contribution or content being shared. And we have to decide if it is a benefit or a detriment. If it is a benefit, then we may want to include it because it adds to things. [[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 17:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

	I've been waiting for the right time to share this link, I think this is it. Whenever TPB (The pirate bay) gets send a cease and desist letter they post it and their (often funny) response here [http://thepiratebay.se/legal]. (Some replies contain NSFW language). <br>		I've been waiting for the right time to share this link, I think this is it. Whenever TPB (The pirate bay) gets send a cease and desist letter they post it and their (often funny) response here [http://thepiratebay.se/legal]. (Some replies contain NSFW language). <br>

Just Johnny: /* Class Discussion */

2012-03-07T15:16:28Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:16, 7 March 2012
Line 77:		Line 77:

	So, I wonder how things that apply in the real world become born-again in cyberspace. Take, for instance a society such as the United States of America. It is a society that is applicable in to a geographic location. The architecture that composes the society, I suppose, could be argued as copyrightable.		So, I wonder how things that apply in the real world become born-again in cyberspace. Take, for instance a society such as the United States of America. It is a society that is applicable in to a geographic location. The architecture that composes the society, I suppose, could be argued as copyrightable.

			Now, people today grow up as radio listeners. So, we are now dealing with an entire generation of people who have grown up in a digital age.

	A website, as a brand, is copyrightable. On the one end of the spectrum you could argue that the architecture of a club, or a website is held under copyright. However, the ideas generated within it are like the phone book. For example, Facebook is a website, and the users generate the content. Yet, Facebook attempts to turn relationships into a brand, as Facebook Friends. Facebook Friends are held under the TOS of Facebook. Although, it's not really possible as a cultural norm to regulate friendships or relationships that are formed between users.		A website, as a brand, is copyrightable. On the one end of the spectrum you could argue that the architecture of a club, or a website is held under copyright. However, the ideas generated within it are like the phone book. For example, Facebook is a website, and the users generate the content. Yet, Facebook attempts to turn relationships into a brand, as Facebook Friends. Facebook Friends are held under the TOS of Facebook. Although, it's not really possible as a cultural norm to regulate friendships or relationships that are formed between users.
Line 89:		Line 91:
	In comes in the Viacom and Google case.		In comes in the Viacom and Google case.

	So, it is the responsibility of the website to remove the content, which is mostly protected under the reporting options available to users. If someone really wanted to be a prat then they could just ban every upload. So, we have to go back to the norms reflected through the architecture and look at the contribution. And we have to decide if it is a benefit or a detriment.		So, it is the responsibility of the website to remove the content, which is mostly protected under the reporting options available to users. If someone really wanted to be a prat then they could just ban every upload. So, we have to go back to the norms reflected through the architecture and look at the contribution. And we have to decide if it is a benefit or a detriment. [[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 17:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
	[[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 17:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Just Johnny: /* Class Discussion */

2012-03-07T15:14:48Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:14, 7 March 2012
Line 75:		Line 75:

	February 28: Copyright in Cyberspace		February 28: Copyright in Cyberspace

			So, I wonder how things that apply in the real world become born-again in cyberspace. Take, for instance a society such as the United States of America. It is a society that is applicable in to a geographic location. The architecture that composes the society, I suppose, could be argued as copyrightable.

	A website, as a brand, is copyrightable. On the one end of the spectrum you could argue that the architecture of a club, or a website is held under copyright. However, the ideas generated within it are like the phone book. For example, Facebook is a website, and the users generate the content. Yet, Facebook attempts to turn relationships into a brand, as Facebook Friends. Facebook Friends are held under the TOS of Facebook. Although, it's not really possible as a cultural norm to regulate friendships or relationships that are formed between users.		A website, as a brand, is copyrightable. On the one end of the spectrum you could argue that the architecture of a club, or a website is held under copyright. However, the ideas generated within it are like the phone book. For example, Facebook is a website, and the users generate the content. Yet, Facebook attempts to turn relationships into a brand, as Facebook Friends. Facebook Friends are held under the TOS of Facebook. Although, it's not really possible as a cultural norm to regulate friendships or relationships that are formed between users.
Line 88:		Line 90:

	So, it is the responsibility of the website to remove the content, which is mostly protected under the reporting options available to users. If someone really wanted to be a prat then they could just ban every upload. So, we have to go back to the norms reflected through the architecture and look at the contribution. And we have to decide if it is a benefit or a detriment.		So, it is the responsibility of the website to remove the content, which is mostly protected under the reporting options available to users. If someone really wanted to be a prat then they could just ban every upload. So, we have to go back to the norms reflected through the architecture and look at the contribution. And we have to decide if it is a benefit or a detriment.

	[[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 17:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)		[[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 17:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Just Johnny: /* Class Discussion */

2012-03-07T15:07:25Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:07, 7 March 2012
Line 76:		Line 76:
	February 28: Copyright in Cyberspace		February 28: Copyright in Cyberspace

	~~So, does copyright apply to the architecture of a website as applied through TOS? The~~ website, as a brand, is copyrightable. On the one end of the spectrum you could argue that the architecture of a club, or a website is held under copyright. However, the ideas generated within it are like the phone book. For example, Facebook is ~~the~~ website, and the users generate the content. Although, it's not really a cultural norm to regulate friendships or relationships that are formed between users~~, or turn them into a brand, as Facebook attempts to do with its ''Facebook Friends''~~.		A website, as a brand, is copyrightable. On the one end of the spectrum you could argue that the architecture of a club, or a website is held under copyright. However, the ideas generated within it are like the phone book. For example, Facebook is a website, and the users generate the content. Yet, Facebook attempts to turn relationships into a brand, as Facebook Friends. Facebook Friends are held under the TOS of Facebook. Although, it's not really possible as a cultural norm to regulate friendships or relationships that are formed between users.

	~~Then~~ there is the element of fair use. As a member of a website, I can publish my work and hold the copyright on it. Although, my ideas may have generated from the architecture of the website and its users. However, since the ideas are fair use, then anything is fair game.		So, then there is the element of fair use. As a member of a website, I can publish my work and hold the copyright on it. Although, my ideas may have been generated from the architecture of the website and its users. However, since the ideas are fair use, then anything is fair game.

	So, let's examine this in terms of a service provider:		So, let's examine this in terms of a service provider:
			(a) Transitory Digital Network Communications.— A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider’s transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections ...
			There is also this element of the service provider. The service provider cannot be held liable for anything. So, there is a round and round aspect involved with content and users when it is posted on a website.
			When it comes to the element of content sharing, we really have to determine if the material is held under copyright. And to what degree does it constitute fair use?

	~~(a) Transitory Digital Network Communications.— A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided~~ in ~~subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of~~ the ~~provider’s transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or by reason of the intermediate~~ and ~~transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections ..~~.		In comes in the Viacom and Google case.

	So, if what we are talking about is copyrightable – then there is also this element of the service provider. The service provider cannot be held liable for anything. So, there is a round and round aspect involved with content and users when it is posted on a website.		So, it is the responsibility of the website to remove the content, which is mostly protected under the reporting options available to users. If someone really wanted to be a prat then they could just ban every upload. So, we have to go back to the norms reflected through the architecture and look at the contribution. And we have to decide if it is a benefit or a detriment.

	~~When it comes to the element of content sharing, we have to determine if the material is held under copyright. And to what degree does it constitute fair use?~~

	~~Then comes in the Viacom and Google case.~~

	So it is the responsibility of the website to remove the content, which is mostly protected under the reporting options available to users. ~~So, if~~ someone really wanted to be a prat then they could just ban every upload. So, we have to go back to the norms reflected through the architecture and look at the contribution. And we have to decide if it is a benefit or a detriment.

	[[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 17:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)		[[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 17:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Just Johnny: /* Class Discussion */

2012-03-07T14:41:39Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:41, 7 March 2012
Line 76:		Line 76:
	February 28: Copyright in Cyberspace		February 28: Copyright in Cyberspace

	So, does copyright apply to the architecture of a website as applied through TOS? The website, as a brand, is copyrightable. On the one end of the spectrum you could argue that the architecture of a club, or a website is held under copyright. However, the ideas generated within it are like the phone book. For example, Facebook is the website, and the users generate the content. ~~And you can~~'t really regulate friendships or relationships that are formed between users as Facebook attempts to do.		So, does copyright apply to the architecture of a website as applied through TOS? The website, as a brand, is copyrightable. On the one end of the spectrum you could argue that the architecture of a club, or a website is held under copyright. However, the ideas generated within it are like the phone book. For example, Facebook is the website, and the users generate the content. Although, it's not really a cultural norm to regulate friendships or relationships that are formed between users, or turn them into a brand, as Facebook attempts to do with its ''Facebook Friends''.

	Then there is the element of fair use. As a member of a website, I can publish my work and hold the copyright on it. Although, my ideas may have generated from the architecture of the website and its users. However, since the ideas are fair use, then anything is fair game.		Then there is the element of fair use. As a member of a website, I can publish my work and hold the copyright on it. Although, my ideas may have generated from the architecture of the website and its users. However, since the ideas are fair use, then anything is fair game.

Just Johnny: /* Class Discussion */

2012-03-07T14:39:20Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:39, 7 March 2012
Line 76:		Line 76:
	February 28: Copyright in Cyberspace		February 28: Copyright in Cyberspace

	So, does copyright apply to the architecture of a website as applied through TOS? The website, as a brand, is copyrightable. On the one end of the spectrum you could argue that the architecture of a club, or a website is held under copyright. However, the ideas generated within it are like the phone book. For example, Facebook is the website, and the users generate the content. And you can't really regulate friendships or relationships that are formed between users.		So, does copyright apply to the architecture of a website as applied through TOS? The website, as a brand, is copyrightable. On the one end of the spectrum you could argue that the architecture of a club, or a website is held under copyright. However, the ideas generated within it are like the phone book. For example, Facebook is the website, and the users generate the content. And you can't really regulate friendships or relationships that are formed between users as Facebook attempts to do.

	Then there is the element of fair use. As a member of a website, I can publish my work and hold the copyright on it. Although, my ideas may have generated from the architecture of the website and its users. However, since the ideas are fair use, then anything is fair game.		Then there is the element of fair use. As a member of a website, I can publish my work and hold the copyright on it. Although, my ideas may have generated from the architecture of the website and its users. However, since the ideas are fair use, then anything is fair game.

Just Johnny: /* Class Discussion */

2012-03-07T14:37:42Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:37, 7 March 2012
Line 98:		Line 98:
	[[User:Gregor\|Gregor]] 14:21, 27 Febuary 2012 (UTC)		[[User:Gregor\|Gregor]] 14:21, 27 Febuary 2012 (UTC)

	@Gregor: Going back to Barlow, do you think copyrightable material is applicable here? I don't think it extends on The Pirate Bay, because a bit torrent is not the original file. It is similar to a black hole that only points to a location. Try quantifying that with the concepts of yours and mine. It doesn't apply. In order to enforce copyright laws on something like this, we are talking about mass violations of civic rights within the United States. So corporations are left to make idle threats. However, I think to a certain degree that The Pirate Bay is a public good. So too are libraries. Except here, we have a community of people sharing information. So, instead of going to the library and borrowing a DVD, book, CD, or whatever, I can share a copy of it with fellow community members. When I am done, I can delete the file. If I like it, then I can go and buy it. It's similar to going to the library and borrowing a copy of The Terminator, holding on to it for a while, then returning it. Except here, we have a community of people sharing information. Imagine throwing a party with your friends who bring some movies and albums over, and then everyone shares. You're not going to listen to an album 24/7 x 365. And if you like it, then you buy your own factory issued album along with the nice packaging and everything. And that's why we need companies in the first place, right? It's because they deliver a superior product that we as individuals cannot manufacture on our own. The real weapon, for consumers, is choice. And I think that is what corporations are sweating over. Look, they just need to start giving consumers actual reasons to buy their products, not use coercion or sneaky or unethical tactics like those posted on the site. [[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 13:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)		@Gregor: Going back to Barlow, do you think copyrightable material is applicable here? I don't think it extends on The Pirate Bay, because a bit torrent is not the original file. It is similar to a black hole that only points to a location. Try quantifying that with the concepts of yours and mine. It doesn't apply. In order to enforce copyright laws on something like this, we are talking about mass violations of civic rights within the United States. So corporations are left to make idle threats. However, I think to a certain degree that The Pirate Bay is a public good. So too are libraries. Except here, we have a community of people sharing information. So, instead of going to the library and borrowing a DVD, book, CD, or whatever, I can share a copy of it with fellow community members. When I am done, I can delete the file. If I like it, then I can go and buy it. It's similar to going to the library and borrowing a copy of The Terminator, holding on to it for a while, then returning it. Except here, we have a community of people sharing information. Imagine throwing a party with your friends who bring some movies and albums over, and then everyone shares. You're not going to listen to an album 24/7 x 365. And if you like it, then you buy your own factory issued album along with the nice packaging and everything. And that's why we need companies in the first place, right? It's because they deliver a superior product that we as individuals cannot manufacture on our own. The real weapon, for consumers, is choice. And I think that is what corporations are sweating over. Look, they just need to start giving consumers actual reasons to buy their products, not use coercion or sneaky or unethical tactics like those posted on the site. Just because I am sharing a file does not instantly mean that it is held under copyright. [[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 13:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

	I have been particularly sensitive of copyright laws since I am interested in music recording and video. Lawrence Lessig’s article ''Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy'' does bring up an important point; do companies really stand to lose profits by targeting artists who may use short clips of their copyrighted material or are these cases mostly based on ideology and principle with little concern for lost profits? In the case of Stephanie Lenz and the Youtube video of her child dancing to Prince, clearly Lessig is correct in pointing out that the inclusion of Prince music in the video would not cut into the album sales. The clip was short and the sound quality was poor. In fact, popularizing the clip through the video could only broaden interest in Prince’s music and may lead to additional sales.		I have been particularly sensitive of copyright laws since I am interested in music recording and video. Lawrence Lessig’s article ''Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy'' does bring up an important point; do companies really stand to lose profits by targeting artists who may use short clips of their copyrighted material or are these cases mostly based on ideology and principle with little concern for lost profits? In the case of Stephanie Lenz and the Youtube video of her child dancing to Prince, clearly Lessig is correct in pointing out that the inclusion of Prince music in the video would not cut into the album sales. The clip was short and the sound quality was poor. In fact, popularizing the clip through the video could only broaden interest in Prince’s music and may lead to additional sales.

Just Johnny: /* Class Discussion */

2012-03-07T14:27:24Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:27, 7 March 2012
Line 98:		Line 98:
	[[User:Gregor\|Gregor]] 14:21, 27 Febuary 2012 (UTC)		[[User:Gregor\|Gregor]] 14:21, 27 Febuary 2012 (UTC)

	@Gregor: Going back to Barlow, do you think copyrightable material is applicable here? I don't think it extends on The Pirate Bay, because a bit torrent is not the original file. It is similar to a black hole that only points to a location. Try quantifying that with the concepts of yours and mine. It doesn't apply. In order to enforce copyright laws on something like this, we are talking about mass violations of civic rights within the United States. So corporations are left to make idle threats. However, I think to a certain degree that The Pirate Bay is a public good. So too are libraries. Except here, we have a community of people sharing information. So, instead of going to the library and borrowing a DVD, book, CD, or whatever, I can share a copy of it with fellow community members. When I am done, I can delete the file. If I like it, then I can go and buy it. It's similar to going to the library and borrowing a copy of The Terminator, holding on to it for a while, then returning it. Except here, we have a community of people sharing information. Imagine throwing a party with your friends who bring some movies and albums over, and then everyone shares. You're not going to listen to an album 24/7 x 365. And if you like it, then you buy your own factory issued album along with the nice packaging and everything. And that's why we need companies in the first place, right? It's because they deliver a superior product that we as individuals cannot manufacture on our own. The real weapon, for consumers, is choice. And I think that is what corporations are sweating over. [[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 13:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)		@Gregor: Going back to Barlow, do you think copyrightable material is applicable here? I don't think it extends on The Pirate Bay, because a bit torrent is not the original file. It is similar to a black hole that only points to a location. Try quantifying that with the concepts of yours and mine. It doesn't apply. In order to enforce copyright laws on something like this, we are talking about mass violations of civic rights within the United States. So corporations are left to make idle threats. However, I think to a certain degree that The Pirate Bay is a public good. So too are libraries. Except here, we have a community of people sharing information. So, instead of going to the library and borrowing a DVD, book, CD, or whatever, I can share a copy of it with fellow community members. When I am done, I can delete the file. If I like it, then I can go and buy it. It's similar to going to the library and borrowing a copy of The Terminator, holding on to it for a while, then returning it. Except here, we have a community of people sharing information. Imagine throwing a party with your friends who bring some movies and albums over, and then everyone shares. You're not going to listen to an album 24/7 x 365. And if you like it, then you buy your own factory issued album along with the nice packaging and everything. And that's why we need companies in the first place, right? It's because they deliver a superior product that we as individuals cannot manufacture on our own. The real weapon, for consumers, is choice. And I think that is what corporations are sweating over. Look, they just need to start giving consumers actual reasons to buy their products, not use coercion or sneaky or unethical tactics like those posted on the site. [[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 13:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

	I have been particularly sensitive of copyright laws since I am interested in music recording and video. Lawrence Lessig’s article ''Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy'' does bring up an important point; do companies really stand to lose profits by targeting artists who may use short clips of their copyrighted material or are these cases mostly based on ideology and principle with little concern for lost profits? In the case of Stephanie Lenz and the Youtube video of her child dancing to Prince, clearly Lessig is correct in pointing out that the inclusion of Prince music in the video would not cut into the album sales. The clip was short and the sound quality was poor. In fact, popularizing the clip through the video could only broaden interest in Prince’s music and may lead to additional sales.		I have been particularly sensitive of copyright laws since I am interested in music recording and video. Lawrence Lessig’s article ''Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy'' does bring up an important point; do companies really stand to lose profits by targeting artists who may use short clips of their copyrighted material or are these cases mostly based on ideology and principle with little concern for lost profits? In the case of Stephanie Lenz and the Youtube video of her child dancing to Prince, clearly Lessig is correct in pointing out that the inclusion of Prince music in the video would not cut into the album sales. The clip was short and the sound quality was poor. In fact, popularizing the clip through the video could only broaden interest in Prince’s music and may lead to additional sales.