All that means is that you are creating work for hire. Your work is still valuable as a result of copyright protections, but you are assigning the copyright to your employers. You are as protected by copyright as any artist is, but you have transferred the risk and the possiblity of reward in exchange for a steady paycheck. Absent copyright protections, you’re looking at dental hygene school, too.
Nope. My employer is in the hardware business (more or less), and there’s little point in anyone making illegal copies of the software I create, since it doesn’t do anything useful without the hardware. When customers want new features, they pay us to implement them, thereby paying me for my labor much like I’ve described.
I’ve also done freelance programming, and in every case, I’ve charged for my labor, not for the number of people who’ll benefit from it or the number of copies that’ll be made. Someone tells me what they want done, I estimate how long it’ll take me to do it and how much my time is worth, and I charge them either hourly or up front.
In Mozart’s case, copyright cannot be blamed:
Actually I don’t think the heirs of authors need to be paid for things that were created up until 70 years after their death… (which could be more than 100 years after the work was created) But that doesn’t mean I’m against all forms of copyright. I think the original duration of copyright - 14 years plus a possible 14 year extension was reasonable enough. After all, the 20 year duration for patents is still working fine even though it can cost millions or perhaps billions to research some things like drugs and a few of those years of the patent are wasted while the drug is being tested.
I think the reasons for copyright extension, such as increased lifespans are pretty silly. That just means you’ve got more time to create more things and if you don’t have any money to retire on you can at least get the pension. There must be a balance between the public good (all/most stuff eventually entering the public domain) and a way of rewarding creativity. It might be possible for that to happen if copyrights didn’t exist though but that’s very revolutionary. Shorter copyright durations would at least be a realistic step towards that. Perhaps the compromise of shorter copyrights will be the best that would happen.
You make it sound so simple, when many of these projects are anything but. I don’t think you fully comprehend what you are suggesting.
You miss the point—they can make the film and risk not having anyone buy it (eg. a studio) now. That’s not the issue. It’s earning enough before the film is copied everywhere for free. As it is now, they can show previews of the film, perhaps even send DVDs out to potential investors, with the hopes of finding a studio or sponsor. With what you propose, they’d have to be very close to the vest, even going to far as to perhaps patting down anyone who comes to see the film, to make sure they aren’t carrying a concealed camera. Because once a copy is out there, it’s out there. Anyone can show it. And the creator won’t have any leverage for payment. Why should someone pay to see a movie that’s already available for free?
And thus goes the few sources of income left for the artist and performer, since you’ve crippled the other sources. That’s fine. As Princhester says, when people stop paying, they stop getting. No more sources of income for the artist = no more works created.
Still self-limiting. Only so many people can benefit from that roof at one time, and even if improvements are made, the ceiling (pardon me) of benefits people can experience is most definitely limited. Nothing at all compared to hundreds, thousands, perhaps millions of people benefitting from an intellectual work.
And even so, people who buy a copy of a copyrighted work can have less, or more, benefit from it. One person may play it every day, and it may inspire them to work faster, or exercise longer, or to make something creative of their own (thus earning them more money). Another person may listen to it only occasionally, and receive far less benefit. But does the IP owner expect more payment from the person who enjoys it more? Of course not. But they do expect more payment when 1,000 own copies and are listening to it, rather than just one person.
He’d never need to do that, because the benefit they’ve received is limited, and will always be limited.
But the band will still charge for more people benefitting from their performance, because that has always been part of the equation, and always will be, whether you acknowledge it or not.
Of course, since a work is of more value when more people benefit from it, or wish to benefit from it.
Still self-limiting. Whatever benefits they may receive, it is not a hundredfold, or a thousandfold. Also, some of the benefits are not directly (and soley) from the roof, but are because of something they added, not directly related to roof repair.
Also self-limiting, since the haircut can only be on one head at a time, and as the example given above, some of the benefits are more to do with other influences, not only (or even remotely primarily) due to the haircut.
You had to know I’d answer thus: Many people on these sort of threads display this attitude, including you. In many threads you have talked of not allowing a copyright owner or creator of IP to “hoard” their works, as if they have no business withholding or limiting others from seeing something that they created. This is exactly the attitude I am describing—saying that someone is “hoarding” something is implying that they have no business withholding it—like it should not be their call to make. To say that someone who does not wish to publish their work is “hoarding” it is the epitome of this “sense of entitlement” I am talking about.
Huh. What a coincidence - the only benefits you consider important enough to warrant this extra protection are the ones provided by artists. You claimed that this other service only provides a benefit to one family, and when that was shown to be wrong, you moved the bar again; now it doesn’t provide enough of a benefit to enough people at a time to qualify. Awfully convenient.
Moving the bar again. Let me repeat what you wrote: Demands are sent: “Send this. I want it. Give it to me.”
Do you really not see the difference between (1) demanding that someone give me something and (2) arguing that someone shouldn’t be able to tell me what to do with that thing once I already have it?
To say that someone who publishes a work should be allowed to dictate to everyone else how it can be used, for the rest of his life, shows an equally offensive sense of entitlement.
I stand corrected and apologize, then. I have been in companies with a similiar business model, but have spent so much time working for software publishers that I tend to think of that as the primary model
The problem is that this quickly becomes prohibitively expensive for individuals and small business owners, and is frequently a terrible use of resources. Even when writing applications for extremely limited markets, I’ve found that being able to split the costs among 3 to 5 customers makes unaffordable software affordable to each of them. Without copyright protection 4 of those customers would have gotten the software for free, but the first would have had to pay five times as much, and the software wouldn’t have been written. I am truly happy for you that you can write one-offs in an affordable manner but denying that other business models work strikes me as odd.
At a time. One family, not a hundred, not a thousand.
Sorry, bullshit. You are picking nits here.
I’ve had that done to me, as have others. But isn’t it a pretty obnoxious sense of entitlement to tell someone, “You should publish this. I want it. If you refuse to publish it you are hoarding it. Because I want it.”
And you can show something you wish to remain unpublished to one other person (Aunt Martha, for example) and if Aunt Martha leaves it out where someone else can get at it, or shows it to someone else, then that person can publish it and share it with everyone. And if you wish to prevent this from happening (after that other person’s copied it), you’re shit out of luck. You’ve got no right to try to stop the publishing of something you never wanted published in the first place, because you were stupid enough to show it to Aunt Martha, or perhaps because someone swiped it from you on the sly, and you weren’t clever enough of savvy enough to be able to anticipate it and stop them. This is a scenario that you advocate.
It makes more sense for the person who actually created the work—the work would have never existed in the first place if not for them—to have some say over how it is used. It makes a lot less sense for Mr. Never Done Jack to be able to do whatever with it, just because he was (perhaps) sneaky enough to get “access” to it.
Ah, but it could’ve been. Those 3-5 customers can still split the costs between themselves; they just have to find each other first, and that’s not as hard as it might sound - the same technology that’s making copyrights harder to enforce is also making it easier for like minded people and companies to find each other.
It’s not that they don’t work, but that making them work is requiring stricter and stricter laws as time goes on, with the result that new technologies are threatened and consumers’ fair use options are limited.
If you buy a game or a DVD and you want to protect your investment by making a backup copy of the disc, you’re now a criminal, because you have to break the copy protection (and the law that backs it up), which is only there to prop up a business model that depends on artificially imposing a marginal cost on something that has no such inherent cost.
Obviously we aren’t going to agree on this.
Yep, and if that occurs, I’d take the deal; if a consortium wants to purchase software from me and they can do the hard work of finding all of the people who want it, they can. That’s how, in a big way, the X Window system came into being. That model doesn’t work that well, although it will certainly work in some cases, and it scales amazingly poorly. That is the value-add of publishers; they read and test and listen to the dreck, so you don’t have to. They fund the acts, authors, artists and software products that don’t work out. Additionally, it’s difficult to locate in advance the millions of people who really are prepared to shell out $10 a piece to see a summer blockbuster. There is no reason that the systems cannot co-exist, if the pool-the-buyers-in-advance system wishes to.
You are missing the fact that the writing-on-spec model works well, and for acts of creation, for independent creative acts, the spec model works better. Should Joesph Heller have gone out and pitched his book to the millions who would read it in advance, so that he could be assured an income from it?
Even with the pool-the-buyer model, if those three companies I had contracted with went in on the product, and a disgruntled employee, when leaving one of those companies, took a copy and gave it to a competitor, do you believe that the companies that paid for it would be peeved? Even though they have, technically, lost nothing?
It isn’t an attempt to impose a marginal cost, it is an attempt to ensure that the amoratized cost is recouped. I suspect, given some of the companies that I’ve interviewed with, that the problem of protecting products in binary form without unduly inconviencing the consumer will be solved and that the laws will go back to the relatively non-issue status they enjoyed in the 70s; people bootlegging tens of thousands of tapes in a garage will be arrested, and those making mixed tapes for friends, while technically in violation of the law (I think, I can never remember if that’s covered by the tax on the media or not), will be ignored.
Obviously not. After all, I’m on the anti-leech side.
Well, presumably a publisher would do that on his behalf, but yes.
Only if they believed they were paying for exclusive use of that product. If they’re actually paying you for your labor, you need to make sure they understand that they’re paying for the software to be written, not for a product that no one else will have access to.
Oh, but it is. If I buy a CD and I want to have two copies of it, the law expects me to pay for another copy - imposing an artificial cost on me when I could easily make my own copy for pennies. The goal is to recoup their cost of creation, but the effect is to fight progress by imposing a cost on something that has otherwise become nearly free.
If there’s any progress being made on this front, I haven’t seen it yet. Existing DRM systems are easily defeated by advanced users, and unfairly limit what novice users are able to do with the content they’ve paid for. But if an unbeatable DRM system is ever developed (right after a perpetual motion machine, no doubt), what incentive would there be for copyright holders to give up even an inch of control, to allow users to exercise their fair use rights?
Unfortunately, it’s also the anti-free speech side. But hey, you gotta do what you gotta do to keep control over your works, I guess. As a wise artist once wrote right here on the SDMB, “MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE!”
And to think some filthy leeches consider that attitude hoarding! 
And this is an example of “free speech” according to you—let’s recap what I wrote earlier:
This is your idea of “free speech,” eh? Sounds like a nightmare. I am sure it wouldn’t take too much imagination to congure up a scenario of someone getting “access” to someone else’s unpublished Great American Novel and spreading everywhere for free, thus destroying the author’s hopes of selling it. And I’m sure we also won’t have trouble imagining someone getting “access” to someone else’s personal project, something that they never wanted published, (and would be grievously embarrassed it it were), and publishing it. But that’s okay too, isn’t it? Screw the indivdual. Mr. Never Done Jack wants more stuff, and we cannot—nay, we must not—deny him!
If you had your way, I’d have to keep anything I didn’t want published (or “given away”) under lock and key at all times, and would have anyone who saw them sign contracts promising not to share them against my wishes. So yeah, I much prefer the way things are, as opposed to the way you want them.
Note to Mr. 2001: My username is not spectrum.
At least he works at producing something, and knows that it’s his. He’s not a Mr. Never Done Jack who thinks he’s entitled to the fruits of everyone else’s labors, just because he wants it.
One form of it. If you prevent people from repeating or publishing things they’ve read or heard, that’s limiting freedom of speech (or of the press).
Screw the individual. Mr. Milking The One Thing He’s Ever Done wants more money and control, and we cannot–nay, we must not–deny him! (See? I can snipe too.)
Really? I never would’ve guessed. Next you’ll be telling me telemarketers preferred things the way they were before the do-not-call law was passed.
Note to yosemite: My username is not Mr. 2001.
Read the law. It is illegal to
Notice the big loophole. It is not illegal to use such a device. In fact, U.S. Copyright Law specifically allows personal backup copies.
Sure it is:
(1)(B) makes exceptions, but only for cases where the Librarian of Congress has determined that they’re needed. I don’t know if this is one of those cases.
Only for computer programs, apparently.
Note the loophole granted under (a)(1)(B) and ©.
So taking someone else’s stuff and giving it away for free (before they have a chance to sell it) is “freedom of speech,” is it? Publishing someone else’s stuff (and embarrassing them terribly, because they never wanted it published), that’s freedom of speech too, huh? Funny, it merely sounds cruel to me.
Or, screw Mr. Actually Doing Something, but doesn’t want everyone and his brother to see it just yet; or, screw Mr. Hard Working and Prolific, and would like to have a chance to make a little money. Let’s just swipe something he’s done (before he has a chance to sell it) and give it away for free, because all the work he put into it doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is that we want it.
And that period and space makes such a huge difference, too.
Here are the exceptions granted by the Librarian of Congress:
None of those exceptions help an individual who has bought a new CD, DVD, or game and wishes to break its copy protection in order to make a backup copy. Indeed, even the other section you cited won’t help someone who wants to back up his encrypted PC game - it’s not considered copyright infringement, but it’s still circumventing an access control and thus a DMCA violation.
I’m sorry you’re having trouble with this concept.
You see, some speech can have negative consequences. Some speech can be cruel or mean. (Some speech can even be perceived as cruel or mean when it isn’t meant to be.) It can make people sad, ashamed, or terribly embarrassed. And yet, it’s still speech, and banning it is still an infringement on freedom of speech.
For extra credit, see if you can answer these questions:
- Elmer has a house. The house is big. Is it still a house?
- Juan has five marbles. One is blue, one is green, and the other three are clear. How many of them are marbles?
- Fumiko has a press. She uses this press to make a copy of Tom’s story, and this makes Tom sad. The principal tells her she’s no longer allowed to use her press to copy Tom’s stories. Is she still able to freely use her press?
Rather than get into a sentence by sentence debate with Mr2001 which is always a waste of time, can I just summarise his position by pointing to this page of another thread
If you read that, you will see the very ugly bedrock of Mr2001’s position revealed.
What it comes down to is that he accepts that without copyright, many common and popular forms of popular entertainment would be destroyed or degraded, but he doesn’t care because he regards that as preferable to any restrictions upon his “let the information be free” ideal.
I think it’s rather an odd position. I’ve never really heard Mr2001 say why he thinks that this tradeoff would be a good one.