AFF's Doublethink

sidereal — February 3, 2010 at 12:00 am

Exclamation-point-bedecked declarations aside, you’re entirely wrong. Copyright is a state-bestowed monopoly on the distribution of copies of creative works. State-bestowed monopolies are bad. Take some time to read the 1841 speech to Parliament of Lord Thomas Macaulay, which is more or less the intellectual foundation for western copyright law for the last 150 years. He considers copyright a necessary evil to remunerate content creators. Necessary to produce exactly the effect that Yglesias claimed: so that society could benefit from the creation.

Your purported justification, though. .

The purpose of intellectual property law is to punish people who steal that which isn’t theirs.

is just tautological nonsense (the purpose of a law is to punish people who break it?), but even better:

we think that artists, writers, musicians, and others have a right to profit from their labors
…
That we should just rob them of their labor too?

The Labor Theory of Value? Really?

Here’s a thought: when a conservative writer needs to draw from Marxist economic theory to justify an opinion, it’s probably worth reconsidering the opinion.

UberMitch — February 3, 2010 at 10:18 am

Second sidereal. Also, look the copyright clause of the US Constitution itself. It goes so far as to explain why it exists, as it empowers Congress to enact laws to:
“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 1, Cl. 8 (emphasis added).
The explicit purpose is stated to be to promote the production of stuff.

Sonny Bunch — February 3, 2010 at 10:30 am

My post wasn’t about what copyright meant when it was created*; it was about what copyright means today. And today, in the arts, promotion of progress is decidedly a secondary concern: Protecting copyright holders from having their work stolen is of paramount concern.

And I fail to see how uploading a brand new CD to a BitTorrent so people can download it for free is any different than some street scum book publisher reprinting a pirated copy of Dickens and selling it for pennies on the pound in 1840s London. Both are wrong, yes?

*Is there really a need to quote from the Constitution when I had written this: “Yes, copyright was created in part because there were concerns that authors wouldn’t bother creating new work if they were consistently stolen from …” My post wasn’t a theoretical argument about what the framers intended, rather where we are today.

UberMitch — February 3, 2010 at 1:15 pm

The need to quote from the constitution arose because you wrote “Yes, copyright was created in part” (Emphasis added.) The text of the Art. I only mentions the promotion of production of stuff. It doesn’t say “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, in part, and also to punish people who steal that which isn’t theirs…”

Don Munsil — February 3, 2010 at 1:23 pm

Copyright violation is not theft, neither morally or legally. Most copyright violation isn’t even a crime – it’s a civil issue, providing a justification for a lawsuit.

This whole “piracy is theft” crap is a framing device created by content industries to try to paint their opponents as crime-loving communists.

I, personally, do want to make sure artists and creators have a robust market for their work so they can get compensation for their creations, but I recognize that the reason we as a society provide them with the limited copyright is so that that market will exist and thrive. It’s not because of some moral commitment. It’s entirely about incentives to produce.

Right now, I am in complete agreement that it’s so easy to copy content that there is a risk of the market for content becoming either non-viable or at least less attractive, reducing considerably the incentives for production, and I’m actually very interesting in trying to fix that situation. I’m just realistic enough to see that ratcheting up the restrictions on copying is going to be ineffective, and possibly counterproductive, in achieving that goal.

Something similar happened with songwriting back in the early 20th century, and many people proposed fixes that included stronger laws and more criminal penalties for unauthorized song performance. Luckily for all concerned, people realized that was going to be unwieldy and ineffective and a system of compulsory payments was implemented instead, leading to the formation of ASCAP. And now (with limits) anyone can perform any song they like without having to get permission first as long as they pay the statutory royalty.

The result: the songwriting market still exists, there are still plenty of songs written, and songwriters get paid whenever their songs are performed or reproduced. The level of un-paid commercial performance is relatively small, because it’s easier to police commercial usage.

The point is that there are lots of ways of incentivizing production of works. Strong monopoly copyright is one. A less strong copyright with a compulsory payment system is another. There are other ideas that are interesting, and at bottom I just want us to pick a workable, efficient system with minimum government intervention.

And there’s always a possibility that non-commercial file sharing isn’t really what’s hurting the content industries. Every content industry is hurting, largely because there’s so much legitimate free stuff to see/read/hear on the internet. If we could somehow stamp out the filesharers, it’s not obvious that this would result in a significantly more robust market for content. And a robust market for content is the goal, not some kind of moral purity of artist’s rights.

Josh — February 3, 2010 at 1:42 pm

“My post wasn’t about what copyright meant when it was created*; it was about what [copyright holders would like] copyright to mean[] today.”

Edited for accuracy.

lackluster — February 3, 2010 at 2:23 pm

Look, I’m not unsympathetic to your position here, but I really don’t think the pro-intellectual property law side is doing themselves any favors with the whole ‘Piracy is stealing argument.’

It just isn’t. It may be wrong, and in many cases, it’s illegal. But it’s not stealing. To state the obvious: Stealing is when I take your stuff without your consent, resulting in the outcome that you no longer have your stuff. Piracy is when I make a copy of your stuff, (often with the consent of the person from whom I’m copying) resulting in the outcome that we now both have a copy.

The ‘Piracy is theft’ argument glosses over this obvious moral distinction. This is not to say that piracy is always morally justified. Still, I think that most people would agree that even if piracy is unethical, it’s a different, and lesser, sort of crime. And of course, the law recognizes this too. If I steal your car, I will go to jail. If I illegally download a song that you recorded, I might get sued.

When you start open with a premise that is transparently false, as ‘piracy is theft’, people tend to tune out the rest of your argument, regardless of its merits.

vanya — February 3, 2010 at 3:23 pm

But, more importantly, copyright law evolved because we think that artists, writers, musicians, and others have a right to profit from their labors.

I’ll say it’s crazy. Who is this “we”? Why do artists, writers, and musicians have some special “right” the rest of us don’t? Given the vast amount of art, literature and music created over thousands of years to which we already have access, it may well be the case that society would be far better served having these people use their creative and productive energies in other fields. We don’t need copyright laws to effectively subsidize bohemian lifestyles and narcissism. Take the time to actually think through what you’re proposing. Just because at one point the government felt protecting artists was a good idea, that doesn’t mean it has to be the status quo forever.

Chuck — February 3, 2010 at 3:39 pm

Josh 2 posts up – well done!

Chuck — February 3, 2010 at 3:41 pm

And while we’re talking copy right, how about the never ending extension of copy right. I think a nice compromise between letting Mickey Mouse go out of copy right and what we have is a modification so that copy right applies for as long as you are (or are at least trying) to commercialize your content. Set the derelict works free.

And as long as we are talking intellectual property, I’m in the electronics industry and I can promise you that patent law is just wholly out of control.

Sonny Bunch — February 3, 2010 at 3:48 pm

Chuck: I don’t disagree that neverending copyright is problematic. I’m just not sure what to do about it…though I do like your compromise.

deadzone — February 3, 2010 at 4:32 pm

It is a pretty sad state of affairs for the average consumer.

I would venture to guess that most consumers are very tired of people like you using intellectual property law and copyrights as a weapon against the consumer.

Piracy is not stealing. An illegal download does not equal a lost sale. You guys are so busy protecting your copyrights and litigating against us that you have failed to notice that your big opportunity to capitalize on the digital age has come and gone.

It’s too late now for the dinosaurs like the MPAA and the RIAA, their days are numbered. The irony is that they did it to themselves because they refused to change and instead chose to litigate in an attempt to preserve their old business model.

In the future consumers will get what they want and deserve and we will be left wondering how people like you could make such ignorant anti-consumer arguments.

Sonny Bunch — February 3, 2010 at 4:43 pm

deadzone: You’re right…in the future, consumers will get what they deserve. In the future, consumers will get nothing of value because nothing of value will be produced. Instead, they will get poorly made music/movies/books/news because the industries that produce quality versions of the same will cease to exist.

deadzone — February 3, 2010 at 5:01 pm

Because you say so? All we have to do is let you have your cake and eat it too huh? Ending piracy (Or stealing as you call it…) is going to usher in some sort of consumer utopia? All we have to do as the consumer is understand that we have no control and that the content that we legally purchase is not really ours and is subject to whatever the copyright holder decides.

You are truly clueless if you really believe what you say and I feel sorry for you. You really believe that as a consumer I should not have complete access to what I legally purchase? You really believe that I should have no ability to decide what I want to do with what I legally purchase?

You really believe this? 1 illegal download equals 1 lost sale? Piracy equals stealing?

People will create and they will create value from what they create no matter what. You apparently are just extremely negative.

rea — February 3, 2010 at 6:25 pm

My post wasn’t about what copyright meant when it was created*; it was about what copyright means today. And today, in the arts, promotion of progress is decidedly a secondary concern: Protecting copyright holders from having their work stolen is of paramount concern.

When you talk of “paramount” or “secondary” concerns, do you mean matters of concern to the law? Or matters of concern to you? Because, what you claim is decidedly not the law, and cannot be the law without amending Art. I Sec. 8 of the US Constitution, which states tht the sole permissible purpose of copyright is “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.”

ethan — February 3, 2010 at 10:01 pm

I’m an IP attorney.

You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Intellectual property laws are intended to benefit the public; their protection of creators is only a means to that end.

Seriously, write about something you know something about.

ethan — February 3, 2010 at 10:03 pm

“My post wasn’t about what copyright meant when it was created…”

You might as well be announcing that you’re an utterly clueless fucktard.

Paul Product — February 3, 2010 at 11:44 pm

Yes, sideral and UberMitch – Sonny writes for the America’s *Future* Foundation! He can’t be bothered to care about America’s *past* or, you know, the *foundation* of copyright law.

Sonny, if you think the Constitutional basis for copyright law is no longer important, then I guess – what? – we have to repeal federal copyright laws. Because, even if you and others thing they’re a good idea, Congress’s authority to regulate copyright (and create exclusive rights, for limited times, for authors and inventors) is derived from that authority.

It sounds like what you’re actually saying is that the Constitutional or historical basis for copyright isn’t important to you or the people you care about anymore, because authors of content like the fact that current copyright benefits them. That’s a perfectly valid reason for arguing for a particular policy (”This policy is good for me. Thus, I favor it!”) but it’s not exactly profound. The First Amendment was originally designed to protect things like a free press and the free exercise of religion. For better or worse, massive entertainment/media conglomerates happen to derive great economic benefit from that part of US law, just as lucrative megachurches often make megabucks under the guide of religion. (Whether those facts are good or bad is up to the reader.) Does that mean the original purpose of having protections for free speech or free exercise have been supplanted by the economic interests of those who have profited from those protections? Aren’t the rights of the press to report and for individuals to exercise their own religion still the fundamentally important values we’re trying to protect — not the economic interests of those who have been most successful thus far in exploiting these protections. (And again, I’m not suggesting that “exploiting” these protections is a bad thing.)

Josh — February 4, 2010 at 1:28 am

deadzone: You’re right…in the future, consumers will get what they deserve. In the future, consumers will get nothing of value because nothing of value will be produced. Instead, they will get poorly made music/movies/books/news because the industries that produce quality versions of the same will cease to exist.

This is what Yglesias argues is the principal, or perhaps only, justification for copyright law. This post argued that he was wrong and that copyright is primarily about artists having a right (presumably a moral right) to profit from their labor. Have you changed your mind and come to agree with Yglesias?

Robert — February 4, 2010 at 9:38 am

For those arguing that copyright infringement is merely a civil issue and and never a criminal offense, I direct your attention to Section 506 (a) of the Copyright Act, which sets forth the criteria for criminal infringement of copyright. I grant you that not every instance of piracy is covered by this provision of the law, but you cannot argue that all piracy is a lesser offense than physical stealing based on the fact that the punishment for “piracy” is the civil remedies afforded by the Copyright Act, when the law does in fact provide for criminal prosecution for copyright infringement under certain circumstances.

Further, why split hairs here? Piracy is always illegal, even when it is not punishable under the criminal code. Whether you think it right or wrong, the Copyright Act does grant to authors of creative works certain exclusive rights, for a limited period (limited in theory, anyway). During this period those that engage in piracy are infringing on these exclusive rights, and where fees would otherwise be due, are denying the copyright owners the monies that should flow to them. That’s the law. You may think the law is wrong, but that does not give you the right to circumvent the law. Your actions have consequences. Be a mensch. Don’t steal.

Sonny Bunch — February 4, 2010 at 9:43 am

Josh: I think a commenter over at Yglesias’s place was right; we were largely talking past each other. We both want the same thing, perhaps, we just have different ways of looking at the tools necessary to get us there. Plus, I reacted a little strongly (as I tend to do when intellectual property is concerned). Since there’s another snopocalypse headed towards this weekend I think I might use the free time to write a longer justification of this post.

chuck — February 4, 2010 at 9:46 am

You apparently have no grasp of basic economics.

Sonny Bunch — February 4, 2010 at 9:46 am

I just want to give any newcomers looking to post a comment a heads up: I have to approve every new commenter individually, so if you submit something and it doesn’t pop up right away, hold your horses. Just FYI.

vanya — February 4, 2010 at 10:18 am

In the future, consumers will get nothing of value because nothing of value will be produced.

So the works of Shakespeare, Vergil, Cervantes, Goethe, Beethoven, Flaubert, Tolstoy, Poe, Dan Brown and the Beatles, etc. etc. will all just vanish? You haven’t answered the question – why does the consumer need more stuff? The current situation is analogous to having warehouses and warehouses stuffed to the brim with clothes and having massive subsidies to textile manufacturers in order to keep churning out new styles.

beejeez — February 4, 2010 at 10:20 am

I read the preamble to the copyright clause as generic 19th-century legal boilerplate rather than something that should specifically guide the limits of copyright law. “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts” — there’s a thousand ways one could interpret that. But copyrights aren’t just for artistic productions; they’re for, you know, drugs, vehicles, windshield wipers, etc. Why should the creator of an artistic entity — a recording, a book, a movie — be entitled to as much legal protection, within enforceability limits, as the creator of a better mousetrap?

beejeez — February 4, 2010 at 10:22 am

or “why shouldn’t,” that is…

Sonny Bunch — February 4, 2010 at 10:28 am

Vanya: I can’t say I understand your point. We should be happy with art grinding to a halt because we have Shakespeare to read and Transformers to watch on DVD? Is that really what you’re arguing?

beejeez — February 4, 2010 at 10:32 am

Yes, I know we copyright books and patent windshield wipers. But aren’t we talking about the same thing?

Mark — February 4, 2010 at 10:40 am

Copying IS NOT STEALING. It is a propaganda victory to even call it “piracy” and associate it with people who actually take something away from someone else.

Intellectual “property” is an artificial concept that was granted because it may or may not help society at large if people can have a TEMPORARY monopoly on their ideas. I am not opposed to this concept.

What pisses people off is how copyrights are no longer temporary at all – every 20 years Disney lobbies to extend ALL copyrights by another 20 years. It is also crazy that we have the FBI randomly enforcing copyrights instead of coming up with a compulsory licensing scheme.

A smarter approach for copyrights would be to do something like an annual renewal of every copyright at an exponentially increasing cost after a free period of, say, 10 years.

Patents are much less problematic because they actually expire after 17 years (plus a few more years of frivolous lawsuits to extend the time period plus some anti-competitive kickbacks). But there should be some adjustments for the triviality of the patent – the “one click” patent doesn’t deserve the same protection as a cancer curing drug.

Robert — February 4, 2010 at 11:51 am

@Mark – The endless extension of copyright is a real issue and I share your concerns, but I disagree with you that taking something that is not yours is not stealing, piracy, or otherwise illegal.

It costs $.99 to download a song from iTunes. The copyright owner has agreed to allow Apple to distribute it’s song through iTunes, which is their exclusive right under the law, and in exchange for which they will receive a percentage of the sale (royalty), a percentage of which they will then pay to the artists who created the work. That same song is available on a P2P network, or elsewhere on the Internet for free, though the copyright holders have not authorized such distribution. How is downloading the unauthorized copy of the song not stealing or piracy? It is taking something for free, that you are not allowed to take under the law unless the copyright owner authorizes you to have it. You are taking money not only from the copyright holding corporation, but from the artist that created the song or record. Whatever you want to call it, how can you justify such action under the Copyright Law as it stands today? There is not a court in the land that will agree with your position.

example — February 4, 2010 at 12:44 pm

deadzone: You’re right…in the future, consumers will get what they deserve. In the future, consumers will get nothing of value because nothing of value will be produced. Instead, they will get poorly made music/movies/books/news because the industries that produce quality versions of the same will cease to exist.

There’s a huge library of stuff that’s already been made. Is all of it ‘poor’? I don’t think so. Most of it was made with the understanding that copyright would have expired by now as well.

Anyway, I’d be perfectly happy without new movies and music if it meant an end to DRM and draconian countermeasures. Because really, I don’t watch that much TV and who really cares? I mean art is nice and all but I don’t see why we should contort our society to such an extreme degree to facilitate it’s creation.

A simpler model of direct payments to artists would make far more sense. I mean how many billions to we shell out to farmers and oil companies? The same could be paid out to artists, provided some fair allocation funds so the government couldn’t censor stuff it doesn’t like.

deadzone — February 4, 2010 at 12:58 pm

Robert -

You appear to believe that if Piracy were somehow completely eradicated that it would result in an increase in sales through legitimate channels like i-Tunes. This is not so. 1 illegal download of a song does not equal 1 lost sale.

At best, one could call it a missed opportunity. Nothing more, nothing less.

Steve R. — February 4, 2010 at 1:16 pm

Sonny made the statement that: “My post wasn’t about what copyright meant when it was created*; it was about what copyright means today.” Leaving the Constitution aside for the moment, what does Sonny’s comment really mean? From my point of view, what is the origin of the copyright owners current assertion that they somehow now have unlimited exclusive rights? From my perspective, as a consumer, the content creators have NOT established any such rights based on any valid concepts. They have simply gone to the congressional supermarket and have bought some despicable legislation.

Furthermore, we seem to forget that when the consumer buys a product they acquire a property right to use that product. I fail to see how those in favor of “strong” copyright can claim an unfettered right to trespass onto my private property to protect their interests. So if we look at copyright today from the consumers perspective, we have a right to use the content we bought as we wish.

Huck Finne — February 4, 2010 at 1:40 pm

Perhaps Sonny should move to France or Germany. Although I’m not super knowledgeable on their intellectual monopoly laws, they do have some concept of a creator’s moral rights to his creation. Since they are moral rights they cannot be transferred even if the creator wants to. Here in the common law tradition copyright has always, going back to the Statute of Queen Anne, been about the benefit to the public.

Curious — February 4, 2010 at 1:54 pm

Do the folks here who believe it should be ok to illegally download music also believe it should be ok to illegally copy software such as Microsoft Word, SAP or any other business application?

Robert — February 4, 2010 at 2:37 pm

deadzone –

I suppose I do think that if the only way to get a song was by paying for it that we would see an increase in sales, though I take your point that not every illegal download is equal to a lost sale.

On the other hand that is not really true with respect to the statutory mechanical reproduction royalty owed to copyright owners of musical compositions (music publishers). Section 115 of the Copyright Act states that the royalty is to be paid on all physical copies “manufactured and delivered”, or in the case of digital deliveries, each download made. Note that the royalty is not contingent on a sale being made, so, at least with respect to mechanical rights, you are wrong.

But really, what is your larger point (if you have one)? That because we cannot demonstrate that each illegal download is not necessarily depriving a copyright holder of their compensation that it’s acceptable to make illegal downloads? If so, I must disagree.

vanya — February 4, 2010 at 3:03 pm

We should be happy with art grinding to a halt because we have Shakespeare to read and Transformers to watch on DVD? Is that really what you’re arguing?

More or less. Why do we NEED to subsidize new music or books? Make the case for it. You’re simply worshiping novelty. If an artist really has a burning need to say something important and innovative, he’ll do it without subsidies. But why should we care if the Grishams, Michael Bayes, Dan Browns, Creeds and Thomas Kinkades of the world have to find a new way to make a living? Subsidising this crap is just like subsidising corn production so we can have cheap corn syrup. Current copyright laws don’t stimulate the production of art for the ages, they stimulate the production of cheap mass market entertainment.

Huck Finne — February 4, 2010 at 3:06 pm

I certainly think a illegally copied piece of software is completely ethical. There are enough significant open source software projects in the world to prove that the government need not grant any temporary monopolies in order to incentivize the writing of code. Thus, there is not constitutional justification for legally prohibiting the copying of code.
A separate argument comes down to the concept of ownership. If I purchase software on a CD from Microsoft (not that I actually would pay for such garbage), I now own it free and clear. I can do whatever I want with it to include giving copies make on my computer with my electrons to my friends for free.
The entire premise that copyright violation or patent infringement is “stealing” fails to contradicts the thousand year old common law definition of theft. Theft requires the thief to deprive the owner of something. If I copy your software, you still have your copy. Hence not deprivation, no theft.
In the end any support for intellectual monopoly necessitates an anti-freedom position. I don’t want to live in a country with samizdat. Further, the continued advance of technology will sooner or later make intellectual monopoly laws moot. Although some like, Lawrence Lessig, desire that the government wake up and open up intellectual monopoly laws, the more likely eventuality, which he acknowledges, is that the system breaks down.

deadzone — February 4, 2010 at 3:21 pm

Robert -

If I had to make a guess I would say that the problem of “Piracy” is a direct result of the industry not giving the consumer what it wants.

In my opinion most have moved on and decided that rather than wait any longer for them to figure it out that it’s just easier to do it on their own. The fact that no one pays is largely irrelevant since it was the industry’s choice to not participate and offer any meaningful alternatives.

It seems that the copyright owners have decided to protect their copyrights at all costs rather than use them in more meaningful ways. The sad thing is that with all the belly aching about “Piracy” they seem to forget that all the piracy in the world can’t take away their copyright and their ability to do what they want with the copyright, such as come up with a competing business model to the piracy system that give people a reason to buy again.

Jimo — February 4, 2010 at 3:23 pm

“My post wasn’t about what copyright meant when it was created*; it was about what copyright means today. And today, in the arts, promotion of progress is decidedly a secondary concern: Protecting copyright holders from having their work stolen is of paramount concern.”

No.

Constitutionally, they are the same thing. There’s no authority to invent a different scheme.

More to the point, it is absurd to claim that today requires yet more power to the producer rather than the consumer. The entire history of copyright is the story of ever more power to producers at the expense of consumers.

Sorry but if what you imply were true, we’d at least see anecdotal evidence of some successful artist saying: “I could create something really valuable but what’s the point seeing that I won’t be able to make any money at it.”

Back when copyright really was “of a limited time” there was a saying: the greatest inspiration for artistic creativity was a rapidly approaching copyright expiration date.

Robert — February 4, 2010 at 3:32 pm

Huck Finne,

Where to begin? You are of course entitled to your opinion, but you are wrong on multiple fronts.

When someone purchases software from Microsoft they enter into a binding agreement called a software license. Putting copyright aside, that contract governs the relationship between the licensee and the licensor. Allowing one’s friends to make copies of such software would be a breach of an agreement into which one willingly entered. If you believe it is ethical to breach agreements that you willingly enter into, then I guess I can see how you think that allowing your friends to make copies from your copy of the software would be ethical. Where I come from, purposefully breaching an agreement is unethical. If you don’t like the terms of the deal, then don’t enter into the deal.

Further, the existence of many open source projects does not show that people don’t need incentive to create. You don’t understand the concept of open source I guess, but it’s not necessarily free. Yes, it’s free to use, under certain restrictions, but you may have to pay for it. In fact, open source licensing schemes are firmly based on copyright principles, albeit in a way that tends to subvert the usual system. If you breach an open source license, say by combining the open source software with a type of code that is forbidden under the open source license, your are violating the agreement and violating the copyright of the open source licensor. Your open source software only works because the licensor is participating in the “intellectual monopoly” system you hate.

You are splitting hairs if you think that for there to be a taking you must physically deprive me of something. As the copyright owner I have the exclusive right under the law to control how copies of my software get made. If you make an unauthorized copy, you’ve violated that right – you’ve taken it from me. You may not like it, but that there is the law of the land. You are free to advocate against it, to lobby to change it, and at your own risk, to violate it. But trust me, if you take the stuff I’ve created without my permission, I’m gonna sue your ass and crush you like a bug.

Robert — February 4, 2010 at 3:42 pm

deadzone,

I would say that what it seems the consumer wants is free music. I would also say that the problem of piracy is not solely a function of the public’s desire to get free music, but more of the public’s increased ability to get that free music as a result of the proliferation of digital communications technology. Piracy has always been a part of the music and media business, but the problem was containable until the Internet came along. There are lots of things I might want for free, but that does not make it right for me to just take them, even if their really easy to snag, if they don’t belong to me. Again, for those that don’t like the current law, you have the right to try to change it. Or perhaps it will be changed as a result of market pressure of some sort, but until then, as a civil society and a democracy, I think we have the obligation to follow the laws.

Huck Finne — February 4, 2010 at 3:49 pm

Robert,

What have you created? Please tell me. I’d be happy to take it and distribute it via BitTorrent or some other means.

Note: I am not depriving you of making money off of your work. You can make money off your work, just not by limiting others’ freedoms.

I accept that the law is what it is. We’ve had many laws in the past that were unjust or screwed up. Sometimes they get changed by legislatures or courts, sometimes there is violence to end them, and sometimes, as in this case, more and more people just ignore them until they mean nothing. Kind of like most sodomy laws prior to Lawrence vs. Texas.

Steve R. — February 4, 2010 at 4:06 pm

@Robert: You wrote: “When someone purchases software from Microsoft they enter into a binding agreement called a software license. Putting copyright aside, that contract governs the relationship between the licensee and the licensor.” We need to put aside the legal fiction that shrink-wrap “agreements” somehow constitute valid contracts. Can you name any instance of anyone actually negotiating a contract? Most of these “contracts” say that the seller can change the terms at will, so how is that binding? (Yawn, yes I know some people will say that if you bought it that you somehow agreed to it, but I don’t abide by that concept.)

deadzone — February 4, 2010 at 4:07 pm

Robert -

It stands to reason that I have none of the resources that these mega-corporations have. The fact that reps from the MPAA and RIAA are both intimately involved in drafting the ACTA treaty and that not 1 single representative for the public is allowed access is very telling though.

So if it’s not really a realistic option to get the laws changed then what do we do? Go at it alone – Piracy is a direct result of this.

It’s a given that most everyone likes free. I think the civil society and democracy part has been pretty much abandoned for a while now with regards to the issue pf Piracy. It’s seems to be a “Us against Them” mentality.

The interesting thing is that one side is winning and will continue to win and the other side is apparently unaware of the fact that they are losing and that they really can’t win unless they can get the Government to intervene and ensure their victory at whatever cost.

Robert — February 4, 2010 at 4:28 pm

Huck Finne,

How can I make money off my work if you go out and give it away for free? Who will buy my work then? Only a sucker like me who respects intellectual property.

By your reasoning it would be a fine outcome if I write a script that I ask you to read, and you decide your going to make a movie out of my script, or your going to publish my script, but your not going to pay me for it, because that would be “limiting your freedom”. I suppose your right if you mean your freedom to do whatever you want, but we have plenty of laws the restrict freedom in a society. Are you next going to decide to run red lights at will because not doing so would restrict your freedom?

You are on amazingly thin ice when you suggest that IP laws are immoral the way laws against homosexual behavior are immoral. There is just no correlation between these two kids of laws. Anti-sodomy laws wrongly require that homosexual suppress the essence of who they are as sexual beings, and deny the rights of consenting a. IP laws merely require that people not take other people’s work without permission. Again, even in an open source situation you are getting that permission – it’s happening under a licensing scheme and using the tools of the copyright regime we live under.

Robert — February 4, 2010 at 4:44 pm

Steve R.,

You call call it a legal fiction if you wish, but it’s more like a legal fact. The courts have spoken, and shrink wrap licenses are generally considered enforceable in the absence of terms that are deemed “unconscionable” by a court. Just the way it is. That pesky law again. Sorry.

Huck Finne — February 4, 2010 at 5:35 pm

Robert,

Both Steve’s and my points are that the pesky law is being ignored by so many people that perhaps we need to question the law.

Who are you or anyone else to say that what I do in my home is or is not part of the essence of who I am. The point of individual freedom is that the individual determines what their essence is.

There have been professional musicians for thousands of years. Did they not make a living prior to recorded music. There are lots of ways for creators to make a living other than enforcing intellectual monopoly. It requires being creative and not relying on the state to be your bully.

I still want to know what you’ve created. I want to give you the opportunity to sue me.

Robert — February 4, 2010 at 6:28 pm

Huck Finne,

I never said you should not question the law. To the contrary, I’ve said you should work to change it if you don’t like it.

I’m not telling you what to do in your home, as long as it does not effect me as a copyright holder, if your messing with my stuff. That’s when I get a say. I would agree with your “what you do in your home” argument if you were merely making a copy of something for which you already paid, for your personal use. Once your start uploading for others to take for free, or downloading without permission, you’ve crossed the line. If taking someone else’s work without permission is the essence of your being, you may have problem that requires professional help.

Your question about professional musicians from thousands of years ago is inane, as the political, economic and technological circumstances under which those musicians worked were vastly different than ours. To wit, musicians obviously did not rely on royalties from the sale of recorded music when their was no such thing. Now recorded music is used in many contexts (films, tv, commercials, elevators, iPods, etc., etc.) and has real economic value for which the creators deserve to be paid.

Why would a film like Avatar ever get made, if people could just take it and do whatever the hell they want to with it? That would be pissing away pile of money.

Meanwhile, you’ve avoided answering most, if not all, of the questions that I’ve posed during the course of this discussion, or responding to my points about open source. Very telling.

You’ll have to wait for the cease & desist letter to find out what I’ve created.

Huck Finne — February 4, 2010 at 6:52 pm

I can’t get the cease and desist letter without you telling me what you’ve created or are you just some leech like a record executive or patent lawyer who doesn’t actually create anything, but supports the current paradigm because its inefficiencies benefit you.

Robert — February 4, 2010 at 7:04 pm

Whatever I am, I’m not a thief. You can’t say the same. You have no respect for artists, authors or other creators, or the works which they create. You have no respect for the law or the legal process. You care only about your personal freedom to do whatever you want. In a word, you are an adolescent.

Huck Finne — February 4, 2010 at 7:21 pm

You still haven’t told me what you’ve created.

I am not a thief because I have deprived no one of their property.

I certainly have respect for people who create things. It’s just that I’m far more likely to give money to a creator who doesn’t impose a contract on me. I have many times donated to creators who accept the unavoidable paradigm of modern computers.

I do have respect for the law and the legal process, but not unquestionably. Neither is entitled to my respect or support when they fly in the face of common sense.

Anon — February 5, 2010 at 3:11 am

My post wasn’t about what copyright meant when it was created*; it was about what copyright means today. And today, in the arts, promotion of progress is decidedly a secondary concern: Protecting copyright holders from having their work stolen is of paramount concern.

Sonny: At least you are upfront about wanting to ignore the plain text of the Constitution and your desire to implement a judicial activist regime at the behest of business interests.

You radical anti-cultural views are on stark display for all to see here.

Sonny Bunch — February 5, 2010 at 9:54 am

Anon: I didn’t realize that the courts were the ones who passed the DMCA into law. I thought it was a unanimous vote by the U.S. Senate ratifying a treaty signed by Bill Clinton. Weird.

Craig — February 5, 2010 at 1:31 pm

There’s alot of white noise and poorly argued points being made here, with a few good observations. I’d like to analyze at least one of the common points being made (let me say in advance that I believe that the MPAA/RIAA is in the wrong on this issue, but there’s alot of very weak justifications being made to justify behavior that results in a measurable injury. i’ll do my best to explain my position as clearly as possible:

“piracy is not theft/stealing”

there are two points to be made here. First: the argument behind this is very weak and shows a lack of ability to reason abstractly. it is a “type” of theft, not pure in the sense of depriving someone of a physical piece of property, but certainly real in the sense that the individual is being deprived of something measurable. It is a “type” of theft in the same way that manslaughter is a type of killing different from murder. It is differentiated under the law from “pure” theft in the same fashion. we can define theft in the legal sense just as we can define theft in a moral sense; and when you act in a way that would deprive someone of something that they would otherwise have, you are doing an injury to that individual. and that injury, as i have just defined it, is an injury that we commonly identify as theft, regardless of how indirect or abstract the injury may be. the differing penalties surrounding copyright law reflect this abstraction, but do not change the moral problem in question.

secondly, the argument that you are not technically stealing if the artist retains their original copy of the song is entirely fatuous and possibly one of the dodgiest pieces of selfish logic i’ve ever seen. I think Sonny did a crappy job of defending his point because he got the intent of Copyright law completely wrong: but some of his logic *is* sound: for example: just because you wouldn’t otherwise purchase a CD or song if it wasn’t free doesn’t necessarily make it *not* injurious in the legal or economic sense to the parties responsible for producing that music. Whether you like it or not, the proliferation of illegal downloading has put people out of jobs in the recording industry. we can argue about whether that’s good or bad (i believe it’s taking us in a good direction), but you can’t argue the injury doesn’t exist. justified? arguably so if you think it’s for the better. but it certainly exists.

with all this being said: it is absolutely dumb of someone to think that downloads correlate with lost album sales. the 100,000 albums comment was ridiculous. but i don’t think anyone here would argue that at least a small portion of those could’ve arguably been purchased albums. again, the injury here is abstract, but we can agree that one exists on this side of the equation.

now let’s discuss why I believe that the MPAA/RIAA is on the wrong side of this debate: first off, I believe that the gross injury being done to artists by illegal downloading is actually often a net gain; this is because whether or not downloading music actually injures an artist is relative to several factors: first, whether that individual is self-marketed or relies on a label; second, whether that individual is an established artist or trying to generate name recognition and break into the industry; third, whether the artist is purely a recording artist or relies on performances as well for their revenue.

if the individual is self-marketed, it means that there’s very little between your money and them; case in point: Zoe Keating is an independent recording artist that pays her mortgage with iTunes. many unsigned artists have been able to market themselves without the help of the recording industry, and do all the legwork themselves. this often means that they never get as “big” as they would otherwise with a national record deal; but they also get more money in their pocket per unit of music they sell. this means concurrently that they are much more injured by illegal downloading than a signed artist that gets pennies on the dollar from the record company for each album they sell. for these individuals, illegal downloading is a direct and net injury.

now if the artist is an emerging artist that can’t yet make a living off their music, free downloads actually tend to help them. imagine a song or album getting shared on the internet. it explodes in popularity, and many of those individuals begin googling the artist’s name, looking for performance dates and perhaps even merch. the filesharing gets their name out there, gets their work to the consumer by using the same $0 distribution model that is so heavily being criticized here. an emerging artist gets their music distributed for free by the people downloading it for free, hopefully generates a buzz and, ideally, the opportunity to perform for a living and realize their dream. It’s basically self-propagating advertising that potentially generates the opportunity to make money playing shows, which is all most artists really want to be able to do: find a way to make a living doing what they love.

If the artist is only a recording artist, this route becomes a bit more difficult, because part of the appeal of free distribution is to get people to listen to your music so they’ll come to your shows. in this case, the prior rubric applies: freelance artists will likely suffer a net injury from filesharing, while performing artists while likely experience a net gain. hundreds, perhaps thousands of fans that might’ve never heard your music otherwise will now be willing to pay to see you live if they like your music; and there will always be individuals like me who value the emotional bond of physically owning the albums of the artists I love. Not to mention residuals from cool merch and creative marketing ideas, such as the “choose your price” models that Radiohead and NIN have had some success with in the past.

With all THAT being said, the MPAA/RIAA is on the wrong side of this debate because they are entirely responsible for it: I am of the opinion that this entire problem was enflamed by the fact that the recording industry thought they could get away with selling CD’s for 20 bucks a shot in the late 90’s and early oughts. The average music fan, especially young kids without a lot of money to spend on extras, rebelled when the first opportunity presented itself. the record companies were profit gouging using the protection of copyright law to do so. in other words, they were using copyright law as a means to hurt the consumer. and the artists were NOT protected by this arrangement. artists to this day get screwed by the national labels, and anyone familiar with the profit margins knows this. we can argue about what is a reasonable profit for a professional musician to be making, but the fact is that the artists making the music make pennies on the dollar per unit of profit from the sale of their records.

to sum: the sea change in the Recording industry is one that benefits musicians by making it possible to make money off your music without having to enter into often damning contracts with record labels. This was not always the case. And the number of occasions where the artist, the consumer, and Music as a whole has suffered due to the profit-driven maneuverings of the recording industry are too numerous to count (Trent Reznor’s inability to get one of his earliest albums distributed due to the legal intransigence o his record company comes to mind). This is counterproductive to the intent of Copyright law, which is much more civic-minded (benefit of society) than it is profit-minded.

So while piracy can certainly be defined as a form of theft, morally and legally, whether or not an artist is getting hurt by it (and how much) depends on what kind of artist you are, if you are self marketed or signed to a label, and whether or not you are already an established musician. I believe that overall, more musicians will benefit from the direction that the music industry is going than will be hurt by it, and so too will consumers. It will be much harder to get rich playing music in the future. But it will be a lot easier for people to break into the industry, and as a musician myself, I am much more partial to the new music industry zeitgeist than I am interested in preserving the old.

Huck Finne — February 5, 2010 at 2:33 pm

Craig in essence points out the for the artist copyright is not really necessary. Although Zoe Keating may be “hurt” by illegal filesharing, the reality is that as an artist, she does fine by not gauging her consumers and cutting out the middle man. Cutting out the middle man results in a lost job or perhaps fraction of a job.

In sum the framers of the Constitution got the logic, which is part of the copyright clause, for copyright and patents wrong. Boldrin and Levine, two economists, clearly detail why, not only in the music industry, but all industries, intellectual monopoly rarely actually creates a net increase in innovation.

http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm

deadzone — February 5, 2010 at 3:05 pm

Craig:

I fail to see how someone is being deprived of something through Piracy. Is the assumption that a decrease in piracy will result in an increase in legitimate sales? I mean it’s not a lost sale because they never had a sale to begin with.

As I said in a earlier post – at most Piracy could be called a missed opportunity. Most people jump on the free aspect but in my opinion that is secondary to the real reason why Piracy is so rampant.

It’s the mechanism of Piracy. You get whatever you want, in the format you want, with no restrictions on it and it’s also going to be the best quality.

If these industries were smart they could compete directly with Piracy and provide legitimate alternatives based on the same mechanism. If they did that, I would venture to guess that they would see huge profits as well as a big decrease in Piracy. I don’t think Piracy will ever stop completely but I think that if they did it this way, Piracy could be mostly stopped.

Whatever though, I may be completely wrong about that. I am pretty sure that what they are currently doing is not working. It also stands to reason that selling legitimate consumers products with draconian restrictions only reinforces bad behavior since it just shows that they assume all to be guilty of doing something that they consider to be wrong.

Fantomas — February 5, 2010 at 5:23 pm

To quote the Supreme Court. The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.”

I get tired of people like you claiming that everyone who downloads is a thief. Ever heard of a try before you buy model? I download music. A lot. I also buy a lot more music now that I am able to sample the entire album. I buy vinyl which generally sells for about $5 – $15 more than a CD and certainly way more than an iTunes album. If I was so hell bent on destroying the music industry, why am I prepared to pay almost double or triple in some cases for music I have already downloaded? You opinions are typical of an industry failing to update their business model and are happier blaming society than accepting that times have changed and the general public don’t want to suckered into buying crap anymore. The public wants quality music (not some one hit wonder plus 11 filler tracks) and some thought put into the product. Where was the RIAA when I was dropping $15 on a CD with one good radio track and nine crap tracks? That is false advertising. They were perfectly happy taking me money then. Your arguments are tiresome and well in line with some one who does NOT have all of the facts. Which label do you work for?

GlobalMind — February 5, 2010 at 10:51 pm

Sonny. Misguided fellow that you are. Piracy is copyright infringement. Period.

If I walk in and take a CD from your office, that’s stealing.

The purpose of copyright law wasn’t to constantly expand it such to protect an industry because they feel like being protected. Yet, this is precisely what has happened.

Robert Wiblin — February 5, 2010 at 11:41 pm

“in practice illegal downloads have decimated an entire, once-thriving industry.”

But Sonny, they haven’t been decimated at all!

“Data on the supply of new works are consistent with our argument that file sharing did not discourage authors and publishers.2 The publication of new books rose by 66% over the 2002-2007 period. Since 2000, the annual release of new music albums has more than doubled, and worldwide feature film production is up by more than 30% since 2003. At the same time, empirical research in file sharing documents that consumer welfare increased substantially due to the new technology.”

http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/09-132.pdf

Karlheinz — February 6, 2010 at 10:06 am

Sonny – I’m a musician (or perhaps “musician”) writing a big long article about why your opinion is wrong. I know you’re not talking about music per se, but the same principles apply. Briefly, these are the facts that argue against your view:

- The ENTIRE purpose of copyright law is to give an incentive to publish new works, so that they can (after a short time) become public domain.

- The “sweat of the brow” argument (”protect[ing] the intellectual property created by artists so they are rewarded for their efforts”) has been shot down, repeatedly, by both the Supreme Court and Congress.

The law cares not a whit whether you get paid for your work. It only cares about the public good. Copyright law exists specifically to grow the body of public domain works, no other reason.

However – as to whether “piracy” means artists don’t get paid:

- “Piracy” can act as promotion, and the biggest problem for an artist is obscurity.

- The music industry is growing in all sectors except those that sell physical copies. (Live shows, merch, legal downloads, etc.)

- People who “pirate” music buy between five and ten times more music than those who do not.

I personally have concluded that it’s wrong to think of “pirates” as thieves. It’s much more accurate to think of them as listeners.

On a political note, if you think your viewpoint leads to better government, you might look into ACTA, which is in many ways worse than the Patriot Act.

Kenny — February 7, 2010 at 11:30 am

Thank you! I agree completely with piracy is stealing and file copying is theft when it is a copyrighted item. We need a new definition of property in this brave new digital world.

deadzone — February 7, 2010 at 11:39 pm

kenny -

The star you have hitched your wagon to appears to be dying.

Sonny Bunch — February 8, 2010 at 11:34 am

Some final thoughts from me here:

http://americasfuture.org/conventionalfolly/2010/02/08/a-few-final-thoughts-on-copyright/

Stephen — February 8, 2010 at 4:59 pm

Fundamentally it’s important to remember that you don’t get to say the law is what you think it is. It’s what it actually is. Parliament created copyright to encourage the creation of new works and it’s not something else just because you think differently. That’s just being very arrogant.

Also: This. Is. Sparta… ?

Les Carr — February 8, 2010 at 5:01 pm

I wish we could drop the metaphors. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement – not PIRACY (’a war-like act committed by private parties’) nor THEFT (’dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it’).

Sonny Bunch — February 8, 2010 at 5:25 pm

I know all you scurvy-having pirates out there don’t feel like reading to the end of the comments, so you’ve probably missed the fact that I’ve already tried to steer people to my followup post, but you really should go over there. It goes into my thoughts in a little greater depth.

Nerd42 — February 8, 2010 at 8:12 pm

“The purpose of intellectual property law is to protect the intellectual property created by artists so they are rewarded for their efforts. The purpose of intellectual property law is to punish people who steal that which isn’t theirs.”

That’s not what the Constitution says! The purpose of copyright, trademark and patent law is to promote the progress of science and the useful arts!

Lonny Eachus — February 9, 2010 at 5:05 am

The prior poster is correct. The Constitution granted the establishment of copyrights and patents in order to “promote the sciences and useful arts”. Note that this is a PUBLIC benefit, not a private one!

Upon reading about the discussions surrounding the drafting of the Constitution, it becomes quite clear that the benefit they had in mind was a public benefit. In short, they granted LIMITED monopoly rights to the creators of original ideas and works for a LIMITED time, in order to give creative people an incentive to create. After that limited time, the works (art, inventions, writings) revert to the public domain. Thus the creators gain a limited benefit from their creations, and afterward that benefit belongs to the public.

The current notion that something like a copyright should last for the lifetime of the creator, plus even more decades, would have been scoffed at as ludicrous by the originators. Since copyrights no longer revert to the public domain until GENERATIONS after the work was created, there is very little public benefit at all, much less timely. Originally US copyrights and patents were both approximately 15-17 years.

With that in mind, the fact is that there is really no such thing as “intellectual property”. This phrase was deliberately invented in order to create an association between creative works and “property”. However, property is a tangible object. Neither a copyright or a patent are tangible property. (A book or even an original manuscript ARE property. There is no contradiction there. If you have a book or an original manuscript, or a prototype of an invention, and you want to keep them forever as your exclusive property, then put them in the basement and leave them there.)

Thus copyrights are not “intellectual property”, nor are patents. Rather, by the clear language of the law and the clear intent of the framers of the Constitution, copyrights and patents are merely a limited set of RIGHTS to a creative work, granted by the Federal government. It doesn’t matter whether you were the creator; the ideas do not “belong” to you. You have limited, government-granted temporary control over them, and that is all. Congress could change the law tomorrow and take those rights away, without due process, which they do not have Constitutional authority to do with property.

And since patents and copyrights are NOT tangible property, the law makes a sharp and definite distinction between them and actual property. In fact, ACCORDING TO U.S. LAW, COPYRIGHT AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT ARE NOT STEALING!!! They are, instead, a different kind of infraction, in a separate legal category called, properly enough, infringement.

And there are very good reasons why that is so. When you STEAL property from someone, you deprive them of the use of that property. This is true whether you steal their money or their socks or their car. You have taken something of value from them that they will no longer be able to use, for fun or profit or whatever.

Ah, but when you make a copy of a digital song, are you depriving the creator of anything they did not already have? Of course not. In a very real sense, they have actually been “deprived” of nothing.

The most that can be said is that you might be depriving them of the net gain they would have made on royalties, had that song actually been sold instead of copied. And even then, that is an exaggeration. Study after study have shown that the majority of copies occur when there would not have been a sale anyway, whether due to lack of money or simply unwillingness to buy the product. Either way, since there would have not been a sale, the copyright holder did not REALLY lose any royalties. The only time there is any loss, even theoretical, is when somebody copies INSTEAD OF buying, which is a small proportion of the total.

So when the “recording industry” claims that 10 billion songs were downloaded, at a retail price of $1 each, and so they lost $10 billion in revenue, they are completely full of crap. There would have actually been only a fraction of that many sales, and THEN they would still not be out the retail price, but only the net on any royalties they would have received. That is a much, much smaller number, usually only a small fraction of the retail price.

One of the big problems that the studios and the distributors have failed to acknowledge, is that in this digital age, many people wonder why they should be forced to spend $20 on a CD of 20 songs, most of which are crap, when they would gladly spend $1 or $2 on individual songs that they actually like. Again study after study, done by universities and consumer research groups, have found that when the music industry gives them what they want, at what they consider to be a fair price, they do buy! A vast amount of lost CD sales has occurred because the music industry has simply been refusing to deliver what the customers want.

This is reinforced by the fact that artists who have bypassed the labels and distributors and marketed their own music on the internet have been making money. Very very good money, in some cases. Why? Because they are giving the people what they want, at a fair price.

The conclusions from all this are straightforward:

(1) People DO buy music that they like and that is sold at what they feel is a fair price. If the old-school music industry is not making money, it is a strong indication that they are failing in one or both of those respects.

(2) Trying to force the market to accept music at inflated prices (via laws like the DMCA, for example), do not work. By the music industry’s own admissions, it hasn’t worked and isn’t working. This should be a clue that they are taking the wrong approach.

(3) Downnloading music is NOT stealing, morally, ethically, or according to the actual law. Downloading itself may not be moral or ethical in many cases, but it still is not stealing. That is a completely different area of law.

(4) Copyrights and patents are not “property”, intellectual or otherwise. They are merely a set of limited rights granted to creative people, in order that their creations will eventually benefit THE PUBLIC.

And in summary, I will just say that all these points add up to one simple fact: the music industry is going to have to stop abusing its own customers, or it is going to continue to lose money. It isn’t going to get both.

Tom Sydnor — February 17, 2010 at 2:55 pm

Mr. Bunch:

Thank you for adding a dose of reality to counter Mr. Yglesias’ vapid pontifications. As for why he might be wrong to think that your perspective is “absolutely insane,” I discuss such matters in more detail at the following link:

http://blog.pff.org/archives/2010/02/copyrights_in_music_do_not_exist_only_to_benefit_m.html#more.

Thank you for your efforts. –Tom

Leigh Harrison — February 18, 2010 at 6:40 pm

Dear Mr. Bunch,
Thank you for refuting the comments by Yglesias. The dialogue between creators of IP (millions of copyright holders such as myself) and the pirates often seems one-sided, with their vituperative ignorance (about the “cost” of things and the rights of an artist to eke out a living from their creation) edging out the voices of reason, such as yours.
I sent an Open Letter last May to all the musicians, artists and writers I know about the problems with piracy (on my website on the “Copyright Protection” page) and I know personally how frightening it is to think that the result of my years of work are demeaned and devalued by people like Yglesias.
Thank you for adding another voice of sanity to the discussion.
Leigh Harrison