Oh yeah! And there’s this film called Lord of the Rings and they gave that away for free! And there’s this author named Stephen King, and he gives away all of his writing for free too! And there’s all these other movies, and the filmmakers work on them and spend millions on them, just so they can give them away for free! Yeah, and . . . oh wait—they don’t give away any of this stuff for free. And never will.
Just because a limited few are willing to give work away for free (can find a way to afford to do so) doesn’t mean that all (or even most) will ever be willing, (or able) to do so.
You have no sense of proportion. There are millions of books, thousands of moves, thousands of pieces of software produced every year. You point to one successful piece of shareware that a tiny, tiny minority use while most people are prepared to pay large amounts for the copyrighted alternative, and you think that you are proving your point.
In fact you are proving how utterly out of touch with the real world you are.
You are like a man pointing to the remaining stump of one tree surrounded by devastation saying: “hey look nuclear explosions aren’t so bad after all”.
The copyrightless alternative already exists. Anyone can write software and give it away already. And yet, the amount produced and its quality is such that people are prepared to pay large amounts for copyrighted software.
The world is yelling something to you loud and clear, Mr2001, but you have your fingers in your ears.
The other thing about the whole “artists get paid upfront” idea is that it does not allow for newer artists to make a name for themselves.
I can accept that it might just be possible for Stephen King to persuade people to pay for his next story before he writes it, however how is Joe random person going to do the same, and if he somehow does what incentive does he have to actually spend much time and effort writing it, and how are your benevolent patrons going to react to the fact that most of the great literature they have supported turns out to mainly consist of bad star trek fan fiction.
Or perhaps you will support the creation of an elite, where only those who can support themselves for long enough to make their names known or satisfy some basic standard of approved creativity will get a chance at contributing to the arts, clearly our society will be richer for this.
Like it or not we are increasingly heading into an economy in which many commodities can be easily rendered down into ones and zeroes, we either have to remove all incentive for producing these commodities or we have to accept some method of reimbursing their producers for the time they have spent.
It is also worth asking what the evil corporations (the ones who have the unmitigated gall to try and make a profit in a capitalist society, the dastards) will do if copyright is abolished. Do you think they will
Slip quietly into the night
Set to work selling other peoples ideas more efficiently than they can. I mean there will always be people who want to go into waterstones and buy a copy of Stephen Kings new book, now that we’ve neatly removed Steve from the equation I’m sure that all the publishing houses will be able to sell you a nice bound version of his work at least a few pence cheaper now that they’ve been relieved of the tiresome necessity of paying any money to the author.
I’m actually still trying to figure out how Mr2001 thinks that copyrights are in some fashion a restriction on his freedom of speech.
(We are SO not going to go into the logical quagmire of why it is he’s against intellectual property rights as an artificial construct, but he’s rabidly defending his right to free speech, which is equally artificially constructed. /boggle)
The interesting thing about freedom of speech is it protects MY right to control MY speech as I see fit (with a few rigidly limited exceptions). It does not give Mr2001 ANY rights to have any say whatsoever in MY speech. In point of fact, a significant part of my freedom of speech is my right NOT to speak. Forcing publication of any copyrightable work that I may produce is precisely equal to forcing me to “speak”. So, actually, legally, if someone were to break into my place, steal my journal and publish it that WOULD in fact be illegal (also creepy and juvenile, but hey) and a clear violation of my First Amendment freedom of speech.
Here is why we don’t treat intellectual property the same as steaks or car repairs or haircuts: there is no certainty involved in production of valuata qualifying as “intellectual property”. Even a good author writes worthless, unreadable shit from time to time. Even an amazing musician produces music beautiful only to the demented and tone-deaf on occasion. Brilliant inventors spend YEARS fruitlessly following up on potential avenues of inquiry before they hit the solution. However, anyone possesing baseline competance in the field can fry a steak, fix a car, give an acceptable haircut. To quote Sesame Street “one of these things is not like the other”. We as a society agreed that the valuata covered by the intellectual property laws has VALUE to us all. In order to encourage the expansion of that area of value, we came up with those laws to give an incentive to people with the skill, talent and drive to contribute in that fashion. The exclusive rights are that incentive.
Before anyone quibbles that “property” is a term that should be applied to only physical manifestations of valuata, I remind people that contracts are not (necessarily) a physical manifestation of valuata either - such as the implied restaurant contract Mr2001 references in his “service” model for handling IP. Neither are property easements. Or mineral rights. Or any of the personal rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Also, anyone making that argument should inspect his or her wallet. PAPER MONEY is an implied contract in and of itself.
As for the DMCA (Digital Millenum Copyright Act), it does not impinge upon my ability to make use of technology for purposes OTHER THAN THE INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT. For an earlier (but still good law and apropos of this argument discussion, please see:
I am allowed to make use of technology that would otherwise fall under the DMCA as long as I’m not using it in an illegal fashion. Namely, if I’m not using it to circumvent Copyright protection. The problem with most of the technologies covered by the DMCA (and apparently espoused by Mr2001) is that they are really ONLY good for committing a crime.
For people who are curious about whether or not there has been a copyright debate about people seeking to force an unwilling author to publish his or her works, I’m including the following link to an article about letters written by JD Salinger. Pardon my inept posting of links I’m not quite as technically adept as I could be.
The basic story is that Salinger wrote love letters to a woman who (either her or her estate) sold them. The person who purchased them sought to publish them. Salinger objected - vehemently - and won, on copyright principles.
As Princester has pointed out, human creativity is indeed a limited resource.
Not at all. There are many different types of legal ownership that have different rules. Zoning laws apply to ownership of real estate and not ownership of cars.
But the sunset laws on intellectual property are not the result of an inherent quality of IP. Society could easily create laws that grant ownership of IP in perpetuity. Or could create sunset clauses on other forms of ownership.
Well, if a law is going to survive the test of time its got to be roughly in accord with people’s innate sense of economic justice. Once you start going against the grain, you wind up with trouble. That’s what did the communists in.
I think that most people feel that it’s only fair that if you work to make something that other people want you should be rewarded for it. And that it’s unfair to get rewarded for work that someone else does.
Just as you can talk about copyrighted works all that you want. You just can’t reproduce them for your own gain without the premission of the owner.
But the speech that’s being limited in this case is non-essential. Making additional unauthorized copies of something adds virtually nothing to public discourse. Creating new original works adds a great deal. Limiting the former to encourage the latter is far better than limiting the latter to encourage the former.
And the elimination of the copyright is most certainly going to have a massive chilling effect on the production of art and entertainment.
How about this as a business model for your post-copyright world:
All digital works of art are distributed with unique embedded digital signatures. This would add a moderate amount to the cost of reproduction and raise costs for the consumer, but it’s certainly doable. This is how the Academy handles distribution of screeners to its members, or how game companies distribute copies to beta testers.
All purchasers are required to sign a contract upon purchase that they will not reproduce the work. Large financial penalties for unauthorized reproduction are spelled out in the contract.
When unauthorized copies appear, the creator uses the digital signature to identify the source. He then sues them for damages under breach of contract.
The creator is now fully protected. Of course, things like sunset clauses and fair-use don’t exist anymore. Mass-market artworks like movies and videogames can continue to be made, although they cost more. Individual consumers have to deal with the hassle of carefully protecting their master copies, otherwise they face ruinous punishment.
Overall, it seems like a worse world for everyone involved. But I can’t think of any other way to make mass-market entertainment production viable in a post-copyright world. If you’re going to gamble tens of millions of dollars on making an entertainment product, you have to have a business model that produces a reasonable expectation of recovering that investment. Prepayment won’t work – not many people are going to buy a pig in a poke. Which means that the only recourse left is to cobble together something resembling copyright from other bits of contract law.
Partially its a question of how you want talented people spending their time. I’m really good at making videogames. So good, in fact, that hundreds thousands of people have willingly forked over $50 to play something that I designed. So … maybe … just maybe … its a good allocation of societal resources for someone like me to spend all his free hours doing that thing he’s really good at? Instead of being forced to work 40 hours a week at something else to keep food on the table and squeeze his creativity into the nooks and crannies?
I made games before I was getting paid for it. And I’d still make games for my own amusement if I was forced to find another line of work. But without copyright I’d spend a much smaller fraction of my time doing it.
Correct. What it does mean is that eliminating copyright won’t mean the end of artistic creation.
Nope. You just haven’t presented a point that makes sense. Just because a limited resource is used to produce something doesn’t mean that the output is a limited resource. It took a lot of human effort to determine the speed of light, for example, but the number that identifies the speed of light is not a limited resource.
The heat controls on your stove. ping! the kitchen goes up in flames
That fire extinguisher. ping!
Stay tuned for Science Series #7, “Rebuilding Your 21st Century Information Infrastructure”.
[/KFM]
Easy: I’m prevented from speaking or writing something to another person if it’s copyrighted.
No, that’s ridiculous. It is not forcing you to do anything. If I publish something–no matter who wrote it–I’m the one speaking, not you.
First off, I’m afraid you’re mistaken about the DMCA. It makes it illegal to circumvent access controls, such as the encryption on a DVD, even if doing so would not violate copyright. See EFF’s unintended consequences of the DMCA, particularly the bit about 2600:
Second, the Betamax case was decided before the DMCA passed, and it was about copyright infringement, not circumvention of access controls. Today, it still isn’t copyright infringement to record a program and watch it later, but if you have to circumvent access controls to do so, it is a DMCA violation.
Not true. DeCSS is one obvious example - see above. Decrypting a DVD is a DMCA violation even if your use of the DVD material falls under fair use.
Which technologies would those be?
That’s true. And if that ever happens, people might have some justification in saying they “own” their copyrighted works.
It’s defeatable, too. Relying on watermarks is no wiser than relying on the copy protection on DVDs and PC games.
You keep saying that, but I’m not buying it. People “buy a pig in a poke” every time they pay for a service or buy a product at a retail store. Sure, if there’s something wrong with it, they can usually get their money back, but there’s no reason that couldn’t work in this case too.
OTOH, other people would spend more of their time doing it if they didn’t have to fork over hundreds of dollars for the tools to do so. Whether that would make up for the loss is something I don’t know, but frankly, I think the tradeoff is worth it anyway.
So not only must your post copyright author convince someone to pay upfront for his or her work, they must also face the possibility of their patron demanding all of their money back if they don’t happen to like the end result.
In addition when I pay upfront for something, I am usually doing it with a person or organisation which has proved in the past it was capable of being trusted with my money. I would be extremely reluctant to pay cash upfront to someone I didn’t know or to an organisation with no demonstrable history and track record, as I said before, under your system you would need to fund every would be artist who claims that they can produce good art.
Absent any kind of workable system for repaying authors and artists for their time, which IMHO you have still failed to suggest, you have to accept that a world without copyright is a world without any progress in the arts, literature, software development, and many other areas beyond which a few amateurs can provide with their own resources.
On the plus side, when all the hundreds of thousands of people working in these areas at present are laid off, they’ll all have plenty of time on their hands and I’m sure they’ll feel like unselfishly sharing their work with everyone else. :rolleyes:
Unfortunately, the balance of power is so out of whack that the time/resources required to make sure your creative work doesn’t infringe someone else’s copyright/patent or to defend against subsequence lawsuits is beginning to become a deterrent to the creation of “new and better useful information”. I trust you agree this is a Bad Thing?
If we look at how the interpretation of copyright has changed to allow it to be used to stifle innovation rather than to promote the useful arts… well, we end up back on intellectual property being conflated with real property. Oh, but that gets covered on page one, right? Obviously not well enough…
I’d certainly agree that there are serious problems with the way copyrighting is handled now, I really don’t know enough about copyright application and legality to pass serious comment, but I do think that laws as they currently stand need a good look at.
What I disagree with is, the proposition that copyrighting as a whole should be dispensed with, I think that the principle that the producer of intangible work should be still be able to control the distribution of it and recieve recompense for their efforts is absolutley indespensable now and will become increasingly more important as we procceed in the future.
The same possibility a mechanic or a roofer faces when you don’t like his work. You promise to pay if he meets a certain standard of quality; if he doesn’t hold up his end of the deal, neither should you.
I presume you weren’t born with the knowledge of which businesses could be trusted with your money. How did they prove themselves to you, and why couldn’t artists do the same thing?
Hmm. Now if only there were some example of progress occurring in one of those fields, like software development, without anyone being paid for it… have you heard of anything like that?
Tool cost is a tiny fraction of the cost of professional game development. A major game title these days has a burn rate of about $500K to $1M PER MONTH. The site licenses for the software used by the team account for maybe 1-2% of that. The overwhelming majority of the cost is salary and benefits for full-time artists, engineers and designers plus rent for the physical space they occupy.
You really have absolutely no understanding of how large-scale mass-market entertainment is made. Tools are cheap, talent is expensive. If there’s no way to pay the talent, you can’t make the product.
If I buy a product at a store I can examine it before I purchase it. I can also research its quality online, or in magazines like Consumer Reports before committing. That’s hardly a “pig in a poke”.
And with services, it’s typical to pay the bulk of the fee after the work is done for just this reason. If you pay everything up front, the person providing the service doesn’t have much incentive to do a good job.
You’re proposing a business model for content development where consumers are expected to pay for a work of unknown quality several months or years before they receive delivery. And with the full knowledge that if they withhold payment until the work is completed they can get it for free.
A business model that assumes your only customers are suckers is not a viable way to operate … .
Hmmm … as someone who actually creates entertainment for a living, I’ve never had to exert more than a passing thought at avoiding infringing on other peoples’ copyrights. I mean, its trivially easy to avoid directly copying other peoples’ work: Simply don’t use their characters or their worlds. Make up your own instead. How hard is that?
Maybe you’re mostly worried about software patents? If so I can see where you might have a point, but I don’t see what it has to do with copyright.
There are also objective standards for judging the outcome of a roofing repair job or a car repair. Under your system an author could spend a year writing a new book only to have to repay all his money because the patron didn’t like the ending of the story. There is no way of doing this without everyone agreeing on some objective standard of artistic worthiness, I trust that you don’t believe that that would be a good thing.
Well, it’s happily consumed by hundreds of millions of people all over the globe. I think it’s quite a Good Thing that our most talented artists and performers are making works for the unwashed masses instead of for a tiny coterie of wealthy patrons. You obviously would prefer the latter.
How about listing all the movies that are made for millions and given away for free? That would be far more persuasive to your case.
Where exactly are your words? What speaking are you doing? None of those words are your words, they’re 100% hers. You swiped her diary, remember. You didn’t publish your own.
And by the way, there are a lot of laws out there that take into account people’s feelings and sensibilities. Most laws, when you come down to it, take feelings into account. (The one I can think of off the top of my head is zoning laws, not allowing billboards or tall buildings in certain areas, because it “uglifies” the neighborhood.) Completely catering to people’s sensibilities, but law. There’s no life-or-death reason to forbid billboards in some neighborhoods. Nobody is going to be harmed. No security issues are involved. Nothing other than people don’t like the way it looks. And yet you balk at allowing someone to keep their journal private from publication, because it’s not “important” enough, even though the victims of unauthorized diary publishing would invariably be horrified and feel very violated. It boggles.
And . . . so? What is your point? Is it perhaps that if you (or someone else) does not value mass-market entertainment, then it might as well wither up and die, and screw all those (the vast majority, no doubt) who find value in it? (And in preview, what Pochacco said.)
All right. Now please explain why that system can’t be used when the service in question is creating an artistic work.
That’s something for the author to work out with his customers. If they have particular needs, they need to make them clear.
Irrelevant. I brought up free software to show that people will still create things without the guarantee of payment. Free software is not made for millions.
Coming out of my mouth. Words that come out of my mouth are being spoken by me. I’m surprised anyone could have trouble with that concept.
I’m not quite as technically adept as I could be.
