I’m still wondering why the “anti-copyright” people aren’t satisfied with a system where the artist can merely place their work in the public domain? That way you can have copyrights for us tight-asses and still let the free artistic seeds flower where they will…
There are likely dozens of points in your chain of services and goods that depend on income from intellectual property. Without intellectual property protections, it’s very likely that you would get paid a lot less to keep on engineering than you do now.
But there’s nothing stopping any artist from working under an “artistic services” model right now. In fact, plenty of artists do! But you are advocating the destruction of information-based products as a reasonable revenue stream, and forcing all artists to move to a services-based model.
So what if the information realm is post-scarcity? The rest of the world isn’t. It may cost next to nothing to distribute a blockbuster movie, but it sure as hell doesn’t cost nothing to make - everyone involved in making the movie still has to eat food that you can’t just reproduce and transport unlimitedly. Certainly the movie industry could still exist based off of theatre screenings alone, but budgets will be smaller and fewer people could make a living off it.
That being said, I don’t think that a services-based industry is unworkable, or that it would in the long run necessarily be a bad thing - but I do think forcing it would cause a lot of short-term pain for a lot of people.
It won’t happen. I don’t know why you’re ignoring this, but without copyright law, producers will find a way to enforce their rights, only the rights will be contractual. No one will sell anything; everything will be licensed, and the licenses will be enforced privately, through “self-help,” technology, etc. No producers will allow a work to be released in a new format without getting together with the makers of the new technological format to impose access and use controls. Rather than a uniform legal system, copyright will become a web of private arrangements, many of them more restrictive than what we have today – when you enter a movie theater, you will be required to sign a license restricting your use of the performance.
And why do you think that’s a good thing? Because it benefits you?
This whole idea of “information should be free” is all about entitlement. People who have grown up with the internet somehow think it’s OK to not have to pay others for their work for the reason that they want to consume it for free, as far as I can tell. You tell a photographer he should “get a job” if he wants to make money at his art? How about you get a job and pay for shit you want like you’re supposed to?
Because the anti-copyright people are basically thieves who believe their own whims and convenience should trump the labor and ownership of others.
Two problems with this. Property rights existed just fine before copyright. Secondly, why should you retain control over property you have sold to me?
I certainly don’t think the world would come to an end without copyright. It just wouldn’t look anything like it does today. For one thing quality intellectual property will be a lot more expensive to own exclusively or even semi-exclusively as the full cost of development will have to be paid up front, not recouped over time.
Property rights are created by human beings. We can make them be anything we want. So any answer to a “why” question about them is going to be utilitarian.
Most creative work requires a large up-front investment. In order to financially justify making that investment, creators need to have some confidence they can recover it downstream. One way to do that is to physically control access to the finished product. If you want to see my funny play, you must come to my theater and buy a ticket to get in.
However, in an age of mechanical (or electronic) reproduction, works can be copied far more cheaply than they can be created. That means that it greatly benefits consumers to create a legal framework where they can have access to cheap copies of works, while still making sure the creator can recover the costs of his up-front investment – that is, copyright.
This is what the opponents of copyright fail to grasp: That it primarily exists to benefit *consumers *by encouraging creators to make cheap copies of their work widely available. Of course, this also has the knock-on effect of benefiting creators by enlarging their potential audience and potential revenue stream. But that’s just a lucky side effect.
Because the enforcement regime required to keep copyright unchanged is unworkable with modern technology and my concept of a free and open society.
The only way to make sure that people aren’t making copies of data in a way that’s not allowed is to snoop on all transmission of data and make things like encryption (and decryption) illegal. That’s really bad, in my opinion. And since there’s a workable system for promoting artistic creation without such draconian oversight, I prefer that one.
I have some philosophical reasons why I don’t care for copyright in it’s current form, but it’s really the enforcement of copyright that is the biggest problem. The others could hypothetically be dealt with by reforming some of the laws, and stopping continually extending the damned duration.
It’s really no worse than what we’ve already voluntarily allowed internet service providers, marketers, websites, employers, retail merchants, and scores of other entities to do, and we’ve allowed it in exchange for almost no significant benefit to us as individuals. Given that, I think that it’s perfectly fair to allow copyright holders to get in on that.
Or how about this – people can be allowed to make unauthorized copies all they want in exchange for telecom services and hardware providers’ paying royalties to copyright holders’ on their customers’ behalf – the resulting hikes in the prices of goods and services would reflect the real value of what consumers are getting. Furthermore, the only people snooping would be the ones who are already snooping on your transmission.
Well, I’m not particularly pleased about the current state of internet privacy, and I think it’s going to get worse.
At least right now you can use various technologies and services to send securely and privately. But those will have to be eliminated if copyright is to be maintained.
A tiny fraction of all book sales take place at signings and readings. Many book sales do not take place in book stores at all, but rather online. That’s one of the main reasons why Amazon continues to be successful and Borders is bankrupt.
Because it is not currently practical for people to attend a public reading (or hear good word of mouth from a friend who attended the reading), think “I’d like to buy that book”, and then go buy an unauthorized edition for less than the official publisher’s price. Right now if I wanted to buy pirated editions of books I don’t know where (in the US) I could find them, but if copyright laws were abolished then such books would be readily available. Any marketing the original publisher did would also boost sales of rival editions of the book.
Why? Authors who interact more with their readers aren’t necessarily better at writing, and writing ability has almost nothing to do with how pleasant a person is to interact with. This system would be of advantage to good-looking or charismatic authors who aren’t actually much good at writing (and their publishers), and to the disadvantage of pretty much everyone else. The world you’re envisioning is one in which few books would be published unless they had a big name star attached and dealt with material that was considered an easy sell – currently trendy topics and rehashes of works that had been successful in the past. It would be like contemporary Hollywood, only even worse.
Two things are currently stopping pirated eBooks from being a major problem for the publishing industry. First, they’re illegal and thus cannot be distributed openly. Second, most people prefer not to read large amounts of text on a computer screen. The former would disappear if copyright laws are abolished. The latter is fading with the increased popularity of eBook readers like the Kindle.
Because printing and marketing books costs money. The original publisher can only drop the price so far before they stop turning a profit. Since the original publisher is paying the author and rival publishers are not, the break even point for the original publisher will always be higher than that of the competition.
Someone will find a way to make money all right, but it won’t be authors. It’ll be corporations. As Acsenray pointed out, a world without copyright is a world where corporations will go to much greater lengths to restrict access to media – and one where artists will be screwed over by corporations even more badly than they are now.
Publishers in general are not likely to survive far into the technological world, and certainly not without copyrights. In fact, one of the big problems I have with copyrights is that they prop up this useless and retardant industry.
I know people who publish real, hard copies of their books for a modest fee, and can always publish more as demand rises. Same with CDs and albums. Movies seem to be a bigger cartel, and $20 dollar movie tickets are the result, not better movies. Still, there is self publishing going on there on a smaller scale. I can’t see box office sales surviving cheap flat screen TVs and sound systems.
And the internet in general has replaced the data aggregation service that publishers used to perform. Now, they’re generally a big fat middle man there to collect rents and fees on things they had no part in making.
So please, tell me some more about how publishers won’t survive post-copyrights.
To the OP I say -
OK, if you think all information should be free then please provide me with your Name, Social Security Number and Birth Date. After all, it’s only “information” and should be free.
So, is your personal information copyrighted and up for sale and licensing to the general public? Or are you being irrelevant, in addition to redundant?
PS: I think the answer is “Rio”, by Duran Duran.
…crystal.
“I advocate the elimination of copyright. How will that work? Give me money, and I’ll let you know!” That was your point, correct?
If you don’t mind I’m not going to pay you any money to find out how you propose companies adapt in your copyright free age.
ROFL! I’m part of the massive industry lobby group. A photographer who has an office based in my bedroom. I’m part of the machine, with the goal of “keeping the man down.”
Stock photography costs money to create: in a lot of cases a lot of money. You’ve got to pay for models. For studio space. For a make up artist. He needs to spend time editing the images. The photographer also has to make money.
I can buy a lo-res photo for $20.00 or a hi-res photo for $575.00 from a typical stock site. The photographer relies on bulk repeat sales in order to cover his costs and eventually make a profit.
Without the protection of copyright the potential to make money through stock sales goes down. Stock companies would have not incentive to go after copyright violators because copyright violation is no longer a crime. Photographers won’t display their work: because even now with giant watermarks through images people will still screenshot and use images for their own purposes. Without copyright people will do that with impunity.
Prices go up. Cost for a couple of models for three hours? $600.00. For a make up artist? $100.00. Studio space? $300.00. Prop hire? Add another couple of hundred dollars. Then as a photographer I have to pay myself. I need to cover my hourly rate. I need to make a profit. I need to pay my taxes. I need to pay my power bill.
As a consumer I have the ability to legally buy a low res image for $20.00 to use on my website. In the “post-copyright world”, where copyright no longer exists and photographers won’t take the risk with stock sites because they will have no protection from people taking their images without paying or them, that very same image would have to be commissioned. So that $20.00 price tag is now $1800.00.
This is what a move from the current model to your version of the world will do. It will increase prices and limit choice. Photography will only be affordable to businesses with lots of money. You are taking away choice.
…spec shooters don’t shoot on contract: this is why they are spec shooters. Watermarks can be edited out. Watermarks can be ignored. Almost every spec shooter in the world will tell you stories about people stealing their obnoxiously watermarked lo-res images off their website and using them for their own purposes.
You clearly do not know more about copyright than me. If I had said what you think I had said then you would be correct: however I didn’t say what what you think I said so therefore you are wrong. However I’m not holding my breath for a concession or an apology.
Of course you are.
I take a picture. I have copyright on it. That means you can’t sell it and make money off it.
I don’t see the problem with that. Can you explain why you should have the right to make money of my photo?
I’m not surprised that you chose to ignore this question first time around. So much easier just to yell “get a job!”
Of course I do.
And why do you think that is?
I currently use ImageMagick along with a plugin for Lightroom to add an image identity plate to all of my images that I display and to resize for web use. I made a decision a couple of months ago to not use watermarks. I find they distract from the image and don’t allow my customers to get the full impact of the photo with one on. This was a business and creative decision that as a business person and artist, I made myself. With the protection of copyright, I know that if someone does use my image without my permission I can get it taken down off their website and charge/invoice them for the usage.
So your solution to this in the non-copyright age is to make my images look as horrible as possible, or not display them at all.
I suspect that your consultancy fees are majorly overpriced.
I actually think that having the right to do what I like with stuff I’ve created is a good thing: and a shining example of free enterprise.
Why?
You have stated that you haven’t spoken to your photography friends about this. I very much doubt that copyright doesn’t come into the equation. In many territories copyright on an image is created the instant the shutter is pushed. If copyright isn’t considered: then the person who has contracted the photographer cannot use the images. The photographer may choose to licence the usage, he/she may choose to give away the copyright. That is entirely their choice: but it is a process that has to happen and is usually part of the contract process. So of course its a consideration: it has to be.
…don’t policeman just police? Don’t street sweepers just sweep streets? Don’t checkout operators just operate checkouts? Don’t CEO’s just run companies? Don’t nurses just nurse?
I’m not sure I understand your point. I’m a photographer. I sell my ability to make unique images due to my creative vision and my technical understanding of light, exposure and my camera. I offer a service and product that people want to pay me for. This is what every worker and business does. Why do you seem to think that photographers or painters are different?
Why are you deciding for me the purpose of why I put photos online? You didn’t write my business plan. Its really none of your business.
What you are suggesting is that instead of giving the customer the option of spending $20.00 to buy a lo-res image from a stock photography company, they should instead pay $1800.00 for that same lo res image. Why do you want to take away consumer choice?
My point is that they’re NOT different.
I don’t care what you do with your pictures or your business. I just don’t think you should make information public if you intend to sue and prosecute anyone who dares to use that publicly available information out of accordance with your whim. You want to keep it private? Do so. You want to make it available to anyone on the internet? Go for it. Just don’t sue kids when they share “lolcat.jpg” with their friends on facebook.
If you want to keep getting paid for taking pictures, then keep taking pictures. Recognize that you’re providing a service, not goods. People are paying you for access to your “picture hose”, not a particular glass of water you poured out yesterday.
You got atoms? Sell them by the bushel. You got bits? Sell them by the hour. I can’t make it any simpler than that. Adjust your business model, not your lawyer’s workload and innocent people’s lives.
…well good. They can make money the way that they want to and I can make money the way I want to. I’m glad we agree.
Now hold on there, yeah you do. You said "You put your photographs up online, not to sell prints, but to show people, “Hey, this is what I can do.” Don’t lecture me on why I choose to display my images. I do them for my reasons, not yours.
If you want to use my photographs you can either pay me for them or get your own camera and take your own photograph. This isn’t rocket science. Why do you feel you have the right to my images?
And if a company uses my image without my permission in a multi-million dollar ad campaign? Why shouldn’t I have control over my images?
Thank goodness that your ideas are so out of the mainstream they would never take traction. Its remarkable you posted with such passion that you didn’t even read my posts. If we were to adopt your ideas businesses good photography would be put out of the hands of all but the richest of businesses. A small business would have to spend $1800 to get an image that under the current regime would only cost them $20.00. You make things less accessible and more expensive. You make information “less free.”
No thanks. I’ll continue to operate under the protection of the legal umbrella that society has decided will work best for it. If you want to change it, feel free to try. Although I have to be honest I find your arguments wholly unconvincing.
Because s/he wants them, that’s why! Without paying for them.
I’d love to see something like a mechanical license apply to all intellectual property. If someone wants to make a new creative work based on other creative works that are still copyrighted, then they can pay for the license. Of course, getting permission in the first place would probably be cheaper…