What you are describing is a collaboration, not a customer enjoying the work of an author. If the customer wants to be a collaborator with the author, that’s one thing—but they want to be entertained and enlightened, and moreover, surprised. No “spoilers.” At least that’s how a lot of people feel (including most in CafeSociety ;)). Sometimes the most enjoyable works are those that the reader could have never described before reading the book, would have never anticipated, and never could have known they’d enjoy as much as they did until after they’d read the whole thing through. How can such an experience possibly be arranged beforehand?
But movies are, and will continue to cost millions in the future. Presumably you still want movies made in your post-copyright world, no? So how about giving some real-world examples of how movie makers spending millions to make sophisticated movies, just to give them away for free? (And don’t say that movies don’t have to be expensive. Enough of us have seen movies being filmed—the process is long and tedious, there’s a lot of picky detail, and talent doesn’t come for free.)
Once again, dodging the question.
Starving Artist, it’s just one of those things, I guess. But as Mr2001 has pointed out, it’s all of us, not just me.
It can’t. If you want to have one of those experiences, then don’t complain when the parts you didn’t expect aren’t as great as you expected.
Oh, please. You asked and I answered.
If you keep me from reading a poem to an audience, you’re limiting my speech, no matter where that poem came from. If you keep me from publishing a newsletter with a certain picture in it, you’re limiting my free press, whether I created the picture or not.
Erm no. Not so much really. The word for using someone else’s expressed ideas, concepts and thought without permission/acknowledgement is “plagiarism”. You parroting my speech does not make the speech yours. I cannot take an oratorical stance and proclaim “I have a dream…” and suddenly become Martin Luther King, Jr. The speech (and the copyright thereof) are his, not mine. Standing on a big hill and saying “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven…” does not make me Jesus. Ideas, even ideas expressed in the form of writing, or recordings, are still the ideas of the person expressing them, even if someone else decides to play parrot and expropriate them. If you can’t see that stealing credit (which is what you do when you stand up and read someone else’s poetry without permission/acknowledgement) for someone else’s thought and expression is stealing from them, I feel sorry for you.
My speech remains mine even after I release it into the world. To each of us fall the consequences of our own speech - both positive and negative. Your parroting my speech does not make it YOUR speech. So sorry. The words chosen to convey a message - the cadence, the phrasing, the inflection and connotation - those are the things that give communication meaning and emphasis. My choices regarding those things - as well as a myriad of other decisions I make in the process of “speaking” in the First Amendment sense - are as individual to me as fingerprints. Lots of people agreed with Dr. King when he made his Dream speech. The concepts were not his alone - they were shared by millions of other people. But it was his phrasing, his expression, his creative input that gave that oration the lasting power it’s had to effect cultural change. Those were his and his alone - to try and usurp them and claim them as YOUR speech is stealing as surely as if you lifted his wallet.
Okay.
Here’s a primary difference between a novel (or song) and a roof: If roof isn’t of an acceptable quality, that fact is objectively verifiable. Defective roofs have quantifiable flaws - for example, they leak. Just because I don’t like a book or song does not make it of unacceptable quality. Copyrightable materials are by their very nature subjective. Roofs are not.
In fact, there are a number of works of literature and music that I, personally, loathe with a passion. I would never voluntarily shell out a single penny to support. Many of those works are generally considered to be an important part of the body of music and literature. For example (one in each field) I loathe Bob Dylan and John Steinbeck. Absolutely cannot stand the work of either man. If their work were a roof, I would steadfastly refuse to pay for it under your model. Yet, they are not defective or valueless.
Another example: What Theoretical Investor In The Arts (under your model again) would respond favorably to the following:
“Hey! You with the cash! My four-year-old can write an opera of suprassing beauty and power, so give me some money, stat!”
How hard would potential investors laugh at that one? That would make baby Mozart cry.
A good many of the finest moments in literature and the arts have come from people no sane investor would invest anything in. A fairly substantial proportion of the world’s most notable authors and artists have been, not to put too fine a point on it, poor credit risks.
Van Gogh. Jimi Hendrix. Billie Holiday. Sylvia Plath. Isaac Newton (a scientist to be sure, but still would be a beneficiary of modern copyright law). Emily Dickinson. Jerry Garcia. The Rolling Stones (collectively). Mozart.
These people have made major undeniable contributions to our culture and society, but they were all not the sort of person one resides confidence in. Van Gogh cut off his own EAR. Emily Dickinson never left her own home. These people were nuttier than a Snickers bar (or in a few cases, under the influence of so many recreational pharmaceuticals that it’s marginally amazing they could remember they had pants let alone find them or put them on correctly). Not precisely the kind of folks it seems rational to entrust with cash on the off-chance they might produce a product I’d like to read or hear. Hell, in a number of those examples, entrusting them with cash BEFORE they produced would ensure the work never emerged.
The interesting thing about a roof is that one can see progress being made. I can inspect the work-in-progress and even as a total layman I can tell if things are moving right along. Novels in progress or songs in progress or any art in progress frequently bear little or no actual resemblance to the final work - or have no physical measurable presence to assess. We’d have to take the artist’s word for it. If I see my roofer staring intently at my house for two or three hours and then buggering off to build a fence for my neighbor and have a few drinks with his buddies, I can be pretty damn sure my roof isn’t being fixed. If an author working on a book I’ve pre-paid for were behaving the same way, they might well be working on the book.
How does your model encourage people who would be producing a copyrightable work that is only of current value or interest to a limited group of people with few financial resources? Some of the most valuable pieces of copyrightable material have been produced orginally intended for a small, reasonably broke audience but gone on to be tremendously important. On the Origin Of Species and *Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica * (Newton’s Principia) as examples. Both written primarily for audiences numbering a couple thousand people at best.
In fact, in those circumstances, your model will actively DISCOURAGE people from adding to the expansion of human knowledge and culture. If I am a scientist and fully aware that anyone who reads my work is totally able to steal my notes and claim them as their own ideas and speech without my permission or acknowledgment, why would I ever publish? I can’t go out looking for people to fund my writing BEFORE I do it - the only people who’d have a current interest in my work are my peers. You know, the people who are in competition with me. If I have no protection from them stealing my ideas, I can’t go to them for support.
Yes, yes those are examples of scientific literature. Artistic literature is much the same though. What bright new screenwriter is going to head off to a major studio (you know, the people with the cash) to pitch an idea filled with the knowledge that (under your scheme) he or she will have no protection if the studio just jacks their idea and claims them as their own. Our hypotetical screenwriter can’t actually say anything about his or her movie idea - to reveal the parts that make it special, creative, interesting is to open them up to the expropriation you’re such a big fan of. Musicians will have to go to money people and just baldly state “Hey, I’m the best blues guitarist in all of history, fund me, man”. If they play their work to demonstrate their claim, someone with a recorder can take it for their own with no consequences.
But of course there is no mechanism in place to prevent the customers from complaining anyway and refusing to pay. So why in the world did you say, “they need to work it out with the customer”? That’s clearly bullshit.
But you already agree that it’s acceptable to limit people’s freedom of press, for “good enough” reasons. (That you have decided are “good enough,” of course) But as it is, we limit billboard makers from “expressing” themselves by uglying up the cityscape in certain parts of town with their billboards, simply because some people think it mars the view. It’s okay to cater to people’s delicate sensibilities because they don’t like how the billboard blocks the pretty sunset, but it’s not okay to protect someone’s private diary from being published, even though they’d find the publication more than devastating emotionally? If not wanting to have the sunset view disturbed is a “good enough” reason to pass a law, certainly respecting someone’s private belongings and private writings is also good enough. Unless we’re living in some borderline sociopathic alternative universe, that is.
Of course, if we are going to live in a post-copyright universe where feeling terribly violated because your private diary was published or read aloud in a crowd isn’t an important enough reason for protection (screw you and your feelings, after all), then certainly most other laws based on “feelings” should be scrapped. Billboards everywhere. Who cares if nobody can see the sunset. Pave over the National Parks. Who cares if it’s ugly and that distresses people. Let them get over their silly feelings of distress. Pussies. As long as putting up a multitude of billboards or uglying up a National Park (or cutting down a bunch of pretty trees) doesn’t put National Security at risk or risk people’s lives, then there’s no good enough reason to not allow them to do it, is there? It’s just feelings that we’re talking about, and clearly they don’t matter all that much.
Excellent point. I don’t know if they would have to claim it as their own (plagarism) though—why bother? They can just take it and use it and never pay the original artist anything. All original creative expressions would be automatically available for anyone to take and exploit, after all.
Oh, taking credit! Is that what this is about? Taking credit for what someone else wrote is a form of fraud, and I would not allow it.
I’m not talking about letting people take credit for others’ work, merely letting them repeat it or build on it in their own works. If you can’t see that limiting the words I can speak limits my speech, then I feel sorry for you.
To claim that I wrote them would surely be fraudulent, yes. But if I simply repeat them without taking credit for them, that isn’t. And the fact that someone else wrote the words doesn’t change the fact that if you limit my ability to speak, you’re limiting my speech:
With no evidence, of course no one would. But if he had already proven his ability (and presumably he already has proven it to you, if you’re making claims about his ability), then who wouldn’t believe it?
I didn’t realize Mozart received a copyright for what he composed as a small child. Did he?
While I understand why people would want to cash in on their success, I don’t think the fact that your work becomes more important at a later time means that your original labor was any more valuable. What you can convince people to pay you for your labor is what you get; you can’t go back after the fact, saying “You should’ve paid me more!”, and expect them to do it.
And of course, Origin of Species had no copyright protection in the U.S. at the time. Do you think Darwin only wrote it in order to earn royalties?
The answer is they can’t claim them as their own ideas, any more than they can claim the car they built in their back yard is a Honda.
Unless they sign a non-disclosure agreement.
What? Of course there is. It’s exactly the same mechanism a mechanic, barber, or restaurant owner has to collect money from customers who don’t pay.
You sign a contract with the artist agreeing to pay $X when work Y is finished, and if he finishes it but you don’t pay, he uses the legal system to enforce that contract. Or you put money in escrow for him to collect when it’s finished, and if he doesn’t finish, he doesn’t get the money. If you have specific requirements about the work (i.e. a particular definition of when the work is finished), they need to be part of that contract. Otherwise, since as you said, it’s subjective, you’ll have a hard time convincing a judge that he failed to uphold his part of the deal when he takes you to court for not paying.
Not a good comparison. Freedom of speech/press doesn’t guarantee you access to every medium. A billboard maker who can’t express himself in the form of a sign downtown can still put the very same message in a newspaper and hand it out on the corner, or he can read it out loud to passersby, or he can email it to 100,000 people who signed up at his web site. OTOH, copyright doesn’t just restrict your choice of medium, it restricts what you can say.
OTOH, if we are going to live in a sensitive artist’s paradise where feeling violated or upset in any way is an important enough reason for protection, then we’re gonna need to pass a lot more laws. If someone makes fun of your clothes or hair, a $500 fine and 30 days in jail. If they call you fat, one year in jail. If they say something bad about your mother, ten years in jail. If a lover dumps you and breaks your heart, 20 years’ imprisonment for the first offense, and death for the second. If he dumps you and tells his friends you were lousy in bed, death for the first offense.
And the author pitches the same story to several studios, only to have the story later be “leaked” and released for free. How does the author (with limited resources) track down who leaked their story, and what do they do now that it’s been released for free? Was any price agreed upon with the author and the various studios, so that the author can now get paid, since the story is leaked? How many artists will want to risk sharing their story with multiple sources, knowing that the more people who know about the story, the more people who can possibly leak it? (And be impossible to track?)
But what if the artist does a really crappy job? Who gets to decide that it’s really crappy, and therefore he shouldn’t get paid? Who is going to enter into a contract that can result in a product that they might loathe, but still must pay for? Are you going to have a judge decide whether the work is crappy enough to not pay for? “Your honor, I didn’t like the ending. I don’t want to pay for the book.” “Sorry, I think the ending is fine. Pay up.” This is bullshit.
I’m not talking about accessing every medium, I’m talking about catering to people’s FEELINGS. Laws are made to cater to people’s feelings. In some neighborhoods you can’t paint your house a certain color, you can’t put certain things on your own property, because it destroys the view for everyone else. That’s the only reason for the law.
If feelings are not allowed in the equation in a post-copyright world, then no laws should allow for feelings, since obviously they are of no consequence. So ugly up everywhere, doesn’t matter how upset people get.
Well, let’s leave feelings out of it completely, then. Photograph someone nude without their permission? Certainly publishing that photo is not going to kill that person, or risk National Security. So publish away! Who cares about their deeply mortified feelings about having their nude photos published everywhere? So what? So what if their privacy was violated? It’s okay to violate someone’s privacy as long as National Security is not involved, after all.
And all lawsuit settlements should not be allowed to award damages for “pain and suffering.” That’s a feeling, so it should not be considered. “Emotional distress”? What’s that?
Sounds like you have a problem with the very idea of paying for artistic works, then. What if you buy a DVD, or a book, and you don’t like the way it ends? Are you supposed to watch every movie and read every book before you decide to spend money on it? Are you supposed to stand there in the airport bookstore, reading the ending first to make sure it meets your expectations, ruining the experience of the book for yourself?
No, of course not. When you buy a book, you run the risk of having paid for a book you don’t like. It’s not a big deal because books are cheap, and that’s why it makes more sense for 10,000 people to each contribute $5 to the development of a work than for a single person to contribute $50,000.
And yet you can still move to a different neighborhood where there is no such rule. The law doesn’t ban any behavior or expression to cater to someone’s feelings, it merely regulates where you can put it. An analogous law might say you can’t republish someone’s private journal on television, or in the city where that person lives.
That’s not what I said, and you know it.
Mr2001: “Any law that limits speech in order to protect privacy should only apply to the most heinous, damaging, dangerous speech, not just anything embarrassing.”
I think you could make a case that publishing nude photos without someone’s permission is among the most heinous, damaging breaches of privacy possible, up there with publishing medical records or financial information.
I think it was six notes in series that qualifies a musical work as infringing. Pretty soon, if not already, it’s going to be mathematically impossible to write a song, regardless of your influences, that doesn’t infringe something still under copyright.
Suppose you fall on hard times and transfer your copyright to me for some cash. You eventually get back on your feet and return to your craft. I sue you for violating my copyright… based on how your style of writing infringes my copyright. I might lose. Actually, I probably would lose. I’d hope I’d lose. Can you afford to fight it, though?
And lets not even get started on the tactics of the record labels…
Both have and can be abused under the fiction of “intellectual property law”
But the book isn’t one that you contracted with the author to buy before they even finished it. The book has been released, it existed before you ever promised to pay for it and you can read reviews for it or otherwise decide if it’s something you want to gamble on.
And once again we run into the problem of finding this sort of funding for a small time or unknown author. And of course that non-disclosure agreement you suggested earlier would be completely useless. Such a thing would be difficult to prove—the author could get a potential buyer to sign a non-disclosure contract, and then the author could leak the story himself and claim that the potential buyer did it. The buyer could leak the story and claim that the author showed it to someone else (or simply left it out for the plumber to find). How could such a thing be enforced in most cases? It couldn’t.
But that’s still catering to emotions, don’t you see?
And if we should not cater to emotions, we must not allow lawsuit settlements that allow for pain and suffering, right? No catering to feelings, remember?
Oh, indeed you made NO such stipulation. You never said, “Except for nudity, because we all know that’s over the line.” (As if you would think we’d all unanimously agree that publishing diaries wasn’t over the line, but nudity was?) You said the most heinous (like National Security, public safety).
And what is nudity but merely embarassing? Hell, since a lot of people willingly are seen nude and are even paid to be photographed nude, it’s not all that damned embarrassing to a good chunk of the population. So how are we to automatically all know that nudity is “damaging” and “heinous” enough, when it doesn’t harm anyone physically, no one’s in danger—it’s just embarrassing? It upsets someone’s delicate feelings, that’s all it does. Just like publishing someone’s most innermost thoughts in a diary is “merely embarrassing.” No one is physically harmed. No breach to security. Just hurt feelings. How are we to make the distinction here?
No, I don’t see that at all. If publishing someone’s most innermost thoughts from their diary, if publishing their most personal insights in private letters is not a “damaging breach of privacy” then I don’t see why nudity is. I daresay that a lot of people would prefer to have nude photos of themselves published than their personal diaries. Hell, publishing a diary could be far more potentially “damaging.” Having your true thoughts about your boss, your sister’s wedding, your sister’s new husband, published against your will? Lots of damage could be done there—damage that could last a long time. Really bad damage to your personal life—not just people seeing that you have too much cellulite.
Well, we’ll just have to disagree about whether those differences are important enough to matter. In both cases, you’re paying for something without knowing if you’re going to like it, and that’s enough similarity for me.
How is that different from any other NDA? You’re really stretching here.
We should not limit speech in order to avoid hurting someone’s feelings. If you want to argue about whether other laws should take emotional distress into account, start a new thread.
Indeed. But what matters is the content. A journal entry about doing laundry and walking the dog is not private, and anyone who claims that it’d be as damaging to them as having their nude photos, medical records, financial information, or dirty thoughts about their boss published is a lunatic. A harmless, boring journal entry should not receive the same protection as one full of juicy tidbits that actually might result in harm if they got out, no matter how private the author claims it is.
But you don’t KNOW what the content is unless you read it, and once you’ve read it the damage is done. Whether the content is “juicy” or not, you’ve committed a breach of ethics by reading something that the creator intended to keep private. If you break into a house and discover nothing worth stealing, you can still be charged with breaking and entering; the same principle applies here.
I agree. But we’re talking about the act of redistributing copies of the text in the journal, not the initial act of finding it and reading it. By the time you’re making copies and sending them out to other people, you already know what the content is.
They are different enough to matter as I think many here have already explained.
The difference now is that NO ONE else can publish and distribute the author’s manuscript under copyright law. The plumber can see it, but he can’t publish it. Under what you propose, if the plumber sees it, he can publish it, and now it’s freeeee! The author’s only Big Chance to sell it is shot. For good. And since the author cannot prove who leaked it (the person who signed the non-disclosure agreement, or the plumber) the author is shit out of luck. No money. Not ever.
But we already do. We respect people’s privacy because it also protects their feelings. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that you want to respect people’s privacy but simultaneously say that their feelings don’t matter. A big part of privacy is about feelings. Not about personal risk, or financial risk. Just feelings.
Oh, I expected better of you. I keep on talking about private diaries and private journals, and you say nary a thing. And now this, the weakest, most transparent backpedal? Pathetic.
What the hell are private letters and diaries other than private? And who gets to decide what is private enough? What “dirty thoughts” are private enough? Is saying the neighbor has a nice ass a “private enough” thought? Who gets to decide this, and when? Perhaps the plumber doesn’t think they’re dirty enough, so (since it’s perfectly legal for him to share the diary) he publishes the diary. So now what? Perhaps a few years down the road a lawsuit is filed and the judge decides that the plumber did wrong, but by then (as LeeshaJoy says) the damage is done. And also we have to take into a account that the plumber doesn’t have to tell the owner of the diary that he (the plumber) is going to publish it. The diary owner could be unware for months or years that their diary is in print.
Try again. I said, “How is that different from any other NDA?”
Non-disclosure agreements are not something I just made up for this thread. They’re used in business all the time, despite the objections you raised to them, which apply equally to all NDAs. Since everyone else who uses them manages to survive, I have a hard time worrying about those objections in this case.
Sorry, not all feelings are equal. If you release a new movie and I say it sucks, or if I say your mother wears army boots, that might hurt your feelings, but that kind of hurt doesn’t rise to the level that warrants legal protection.
Emotional distress can rise to that level, but there needs to be a reasonable standard: even if someone happens to be absolutely devastated by hearing her mother or her work insulted, she doesn’t deserve legal recourse, because we realize she’s being unreasonably sensitive.
This, unfortunately, is exactly what I’ve come to expect from you: resorting to phony outrage and insults rather than addressing the point I actually made.
Once again: Whether something deserves legal protection as a breach of privacy ought to depend on its content and potential for harm, not the fact that someone said the magic words “this is private”. If I can make the call, so can anyone else; I may be a smart fellow, but there are plenty of people just as smart as me.
Now, it looks like we’ve been rehashing that old privacy thread, even though I said I wasn’t going to. This seems like a fine place to stop. My position is clear, I doubt anything I say is going to make them any clearer, and anyone who doesn’t like it is free to have their own opinion.
I already explained why—NDAs are currently agreed to in an environment where the breach does not equal, “You work is now freeee!” In your perfect universe, if someone can’t prove that there was a violation of the NDA, the leaked work is still freeeee! That’s not how it is now. The risk is far less. There might be damage if the work is leaked, but it will never become freeeee!
No, they aren’t. But you’re the one saying that publishing someone’s diary isn’t private enough, but publishing photos of them nude is private enough. But oh wait—did we say “private” diaries? No, we really meant, “private diaries full of ‘harmless’ stuff.” But what is “harmless”? What is “dirty”? Oh, I don’t know—let’s wait a few years after it’s published and let a judge decide!
But who sets that standard? You? “Diaries aren’t private enough—oh wait—it depends on what is written in them, then maybe they’re private enough, but since nobody can know what the standard of private enough is, and since we agree it’s okay to publish someone’s diary, we can do it anyway and hope it’s not private enough and if it’s not, it can be taken to court a few years later, after the private enough diary has been in print for a long time and has done plenty of damage.”
I addressed exactly the point you made, and you set yourself up for it. I didn’t twist your arm and make you repeatedly state that publishing diaries and journals (private diaries and journals—as they usually are) should be okay, until, oh wait—the Big Backpedal when you see you’ve argued yourself into a corner.
But one easy way to indicate whether something is “private” is if they created it, they don’t agree to let anyone publish it, it’s found in their private home, and (one more time) they don’t give permission for people to publish it.
The alternative is to have some judge decide whether Suzie’s journal admission that she spent that week in Michigan with her boyfriend Bob is private enough. Well, perhaps it’s perfectly boring and uninteresting tidbit of information, but perhaps Suzie is married and Bob is her pastor, but now Suzie’s back with her husband and happy as ever while Bob has a new church where he is well respected. Something that seems “harmless” enough might be deeply private to the person, might uncover other information that could be damaging to them and disclosing it against their wishes will cause them deep harm. But how is the plumber who has “access” to Suzie’s diary to know this? By the time we can judge that publishing Suzie’s diary has left her life in a shambles, and therefore private enough, the damage is done.
One of the few dignities a person should be allowed is to deem what writings and works they create and keep in their own home are private enough. The laws already allow for this and so far you’ve given no compelling argument to persuade us to change that.
Well, sure. Much less energy than to keep up the backpedalling.
Of course it does. The whole point of an NDA is that you have some information you don’t want to become freeeee.
And who decides how much risk is acceptable? You?
Apparently, your reading of my posts isn’t just careless, it’s dishonest. It has been clear since post #185 that I made exceptions based on content.
No, the 4th Amendment is only binding on the government. It would surely violate some other laws, though… anything from breaking and entering to trespass.
I tire of repeating this. If your plan comes to be, someone can leak your work, and unless it is proven that they broke an NDA to leak it, the work is freeeeee. That’s not how it is now. The work is leaked, but it’s not freeee since those who leak it have no right (no matter if they are a plumber or not) to publish it.
And in your perfect universe, in many circumstances, it will be difficult to prove that the work was leaked (breaking an NDA). Because it’s quite possible that the plumber leaked it (perfectly legally under your plan), and how will you prove that the plumber didn’t do it? And if you can’t prove that the plumber didn’t do it, the work becomes freeeee by default. The more people that see it (NDA or not) the more people that can leak it, and the more risk you have for your work to become freeeeee.
The laws that already exist seem to be fine for most people. You want to change the definition of what is private enough, so far you’ve failed to be compelling.
Vague mention of “heinous”? That’s it? But publishing someone’s private diary isn’t “heinous” enough? You spend all this time supporting an action that most already consider “heinous” on its own (publishing someone’s private diary that they had in their home), and yet you offer exemptions for “heinous”? Buddy, you’ve been pushing for something heinous all this time (at least heinous enough by many of our definitions). So sorry, but in no way will this fly.
Do you see Steve Jobs struggling to prove that his plumber didn’t leak information about Apple’s unreleased products? Listen, if what you’re complaining about were really such a problem, all non-disclosure agreements would be worthless.
