# IP and copyright. What is your view? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [September 7, 2012, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ip-and-copyright-what-is-your-view/634016 "2012-09-07T17:43:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2012, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ip-and-copyright-what-is-your-view/634016/101 "2012-09-10T23:54:55Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > You haven’t, you haven’t even tried to show anything. > > You do. That appears to be the sum total of your argument. Really, why are you wasting your time and mine with your nonsense? You’re wasting your time here. Go look at some of the other threads he’s participated in. Long on assertions. Short on anything else. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2012, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ip-and-copyright-what-is-your-view/634016/102 "2012-09-10T23:58:22Z")
> [@Beware\_of\_Doug](#): > > If true, might the arguments against piracy ultimately be coming from a group that is neither creator nor consumer? > [ChurchLady]Could it be…_Big Media???_[/ChurchLady] > > Especially telling is that hardly anyone on the anti-piracy side dares even _mention_ big media: publishers, marketers, distributors, middlemen. **Artists vs. Pirates** is the official scorecard. I completely agree. It’s big companies rather than artists that are motivated to churn out crap, and fool people into buying it sight unseen, with misleading advertising. Free access is allowing people to make accurate judgements about the worth of art, and pay that value directly to the creators. The only sensible way to end piracy, is to offer all digital content on a pay-what-you-will basis, cutting out most or all middlemen. This will ensure all revenues go straight to the artists. Artists who have tried this have found they make more than through traditional sales, including big names such as Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails, as well as thousands of smaller bands. ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ip-and-copyright-what-is-your-view/634016/103 "2012-09-11T00:04:09Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > You’re wasting your time here. Go look at some of the other threads he’s participated in. Long on assertions. Short on anything else. Good point. **lance** ’s rhetorical engagement is limited to terse insistence. It’s as if he feels it’s a sign of weakness to be caught defending a point, let alone provide a cite. Who taught you how to debate, **lance** - pick-up artists? ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ip-and-copyright-what-is-your-view/634016/104 "2012-09-11T00:06:08Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > You’re wasting your time here. Go look at some of the other threads he’s participated in. Long on assertions. Short on anything else. It’s given me an opportunity to examine and flesh out my arguments, which is interesting to me, at least. Dunno if anyone else is interested, but that’s why there’s a scroll wheel. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ip-and-copyright-what-is-your-view/634016/105 "2012-09-11T01:10:47Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Correct. If, however, I copy one of his pencils and use it, whilst leaving him with all his previous pencils, it’s not theft. Morally or legally. If I put it like that, do you understand how fucking stupid your argument that copying=theft is? Yes, that’s theft, because he had the right to copy his own pencil and sell it, and now you’ve taken one, denying him the sale to you or someone else. > [@](#): > > Yes. I say it causes no harm, and it’s now up to you to show it causes harm. LOL. No, that’s not how basic debate works. You don’t get to say something and then tell someone else to prove it’s wrong. > [@](#): > > I can, and have produced evidence that _no harm is occurring_, but even if you don’t accept that, and believe that less music is being sold now, you _still_ have to show that piracy causes it. You haven’t, you haven’t even tried to show anything. That’s right. So stop trying to get me to prove something I haven’t tried to show. > [@](#): > > You do. That appears to be the sum total of your argument. Really, why are you wasting your time and mine with your nonsense? Couldn’t have said it better myself. > [@](#): > > You did none of those things. I proved that piracy is not harming music sales, No, you didn’t. You can’t know how much sales would have been without piracy. See how that works? > [@](#): > > Your claim is that they might have increased further if not for piracy. Quite apart from the fact that that is almost certainly false, it’s irrelevant. It couldn’t be more relevant. This is really basic stuff. Any social sciences undergrad could see right through your numbers. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ip-and-copyright-what-is-your-view/634016/106 "2012-09-11T02:13:28Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Yes, that’s theft, because he had the right to copy his own pencil and sell it, and now you’ve taken one, denying him the sale to you or someone else. No, that’s completely wrong. I’ve not denied him anything. If I’d taken one of his pencils, you would be correct. If a new pencil is created, and he’s lost nothing - analagous to what happens in file sharing - I’ve not harmed him, and not taken anything. As I’ve not taken anything, or done anything to harm him, you now have to show how I’ve done anything wrong. Of course, you’ve already shown you’re unwilling or unable to do so, and I don’t expect this time will be any different. ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ip-and-copyright-what-is-your-view/634016/107 "2012-09-11T02:22:18Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > No, that’s not how basic debate works. > > You don’t get to say something and then tell someone else to prove it’s wrong. Hey now! Nobody gets to tell _you_ to prove _anything_. And that is _definitely_ not how debate works. ---
**Author:** ![Mnemnosyne](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mnemnosyne/32/3347_2.png) [@Mnemnosyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mnemnosyne)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ip-and-copyright-what-is-your-view/634016/108 "2012-09-11T02:34:39Z")
> [@Max\_Torque](#): > > Yeah, the opportunity is huge, _if_ you hit it big. However, your examples are striking precisely because they are so rare. A typical non-salaried fiction writer starts out making maybe $4K-$10K a year, before taxes and agent fees and other costs of doing business. As you get more well known, you might expect to make $20K-$40K a year, and by the time you’re a well-known name cranking out 2 or 3 books a year, you could be making $60K to $100K. Super-popular authors who write genre fiction might make up to $250K, and the industry Big Dogs, like Stephen King, Tom Clancy, John Grisham, and Nora Roberts, pull in way-off-the-graph amounts of cash. Rowling, with an income higher than the freakin’ Queen of England, isn’t in any way a realistic goal. > > But it takes 15 years even to get to that “well-known name” stage. So, if the term of copyright is too short, people get to start monkeying with your early works (and you stop earning money from them) just as you finally become successful. I realize that the goal of copyright is “promoting Science and the useful Arts” and all, but I don’t feel that it’s necessary to shorten the term quite that much to achieve that goal. True, I chose extreme examples because the numbers were big, but the fact is that as Blaster Master said, it doesn’t seem like there would be a major effect on smaller producers either. If I write a novel and don’t make much of any money off it in 15 years, then that novel has been a commercial failure. While it’s possible than 20 years down the line it’ll suddenly become popular, it’s pretty unlikely. If I’m making a reasonable but not hugely successful living off the novel, I’m going to want to write more novels and keep the income coming in - continuing to make a small amount of money from a few sales of the book 16+ years later might be nice, but it’s not likely to be my primary means of supporting myself. This is doubly true for 28 years later. I’m also reasonably sure most books, music, games, and movies make the majority of their money in the first few years (although I’m failing to find the proper statistics to back that up). It is in fact only the incredibly successful works like Disney’s classics, Star Wars, Harry Potter, and so on, that can continue to pull in huge amounts of money decades after they’ve been released. And allowing those companies or people to maintain an exclusive stranglehold on publishing those works as well undoubtedly hurts creativity. The small author that never hits a fantastic success needs to regularly publish books to maintain their income; this doesn’t really change if copyright is only 28 years, or only 15 years, rather than lifetime + 70 years. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ip-and-copyright-what-is-your-view/634016/109 "2012-09-11T12:59:08Z")
> [@Beware\_of\_Doug](#): > > Hey now! Nobody gets to tell _you_ to prove _anything_. And that is _definitely_ not how debate works. Prove you don’t hate puppies. Until you do, you’re a puppy hater. Damn puppy hater! ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ip-and-copyright-what-is-your-view/634016/110 "2012-09-11T13:02:22Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > No, that’s completely wrong. I’ve not denied him anything. If I’d taken one of his pencils, you would be correct. If a new pencil is created, and he’s lost nothing - analagous to what happens in file sharing - I’ve not harmed him, and not taken anything. Sigh. I just explained this. You took away something he could sell. Now he can’t sell it. I suppose that you think if you steal a dollar, all you stole is a scrap of paper, not a dollar. IP is not the only kind of property that has value that you can’t actually hold in your hand. Doesn’t make it less real. For example, cap-and-trade certificates for carbon dioxide emissions, commodity futures, a promissory note. Just paper, right? Not an actual thing, right? ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ip-and-copyright-what-is-your-view/634016/111 "2012-09-11T14:52:30Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > You took away something he could sell. Now he can’t sell it. Ah, you still misunderstand. I took nothing from him, he still has his pencil and can sell it. I _also_ have a pencil. Please explain what I took from him, and how he’s prevented from selling it, by my action of creating a pencil identical to his. Then, when you realise that I took nothing, and he’s prevented from doing nothing, understand how the analogy applies to file sharing. Then, admit you’re wrong. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ip-and-copyright-what-is-your-view/634016/112 "2012-09-11T14:56:39Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Ah, you still misunderstand. I took nothing from him, he still has his pencil and can sell it. I _also_ have a pencil. And he has lost money that he might have made by selling the pencil you took, instead of you stealing it. > [@](#): > > Please explain what I took from him, and how he’s prevented from selling it, by my action of creating a pencil identical to his. See above. > [@](#): > > Then, when you realise that I took nothing, and he’s prevented from doing nothing, understand how the analogy applies to file sharing. Then, admit you’re wrong. If you took “nothing” then why did you take it, and why are you so hellbent on asserting the right to take it? ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ip-and-copyright-what-is-your-view/634016/113 "2012-09-11T15:47:10Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > If you took “nothing” then why did you take it, and why are you so hellbent on asserting the right to take it? I didn’t take anything, and I’m not asserting any right to take anything. Please make it clear that you understand this, and stop claiming that I’m saying things I’m not. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ip-and-copyright-what-is-your-view/634016/114 "2012-09-11T16:19:10Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I didn’t take anything, and I’m not asserting any right to take anything. Please make it clear that you understand this, and stop claiming that I’m saying things I’m not. You’re living in a bizarro world. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ip-and-copyright-what-is-your-view/634016/115 "2012-09-11T17:04:24Z")
> [@Mnemnosyne](#): > > True, I chose extreme examples because the numbers were big, but the fact is that as Blaster Master said, it doesn’t seem like there would be a major effect on smaller producers either. > > If I write a novel and don’t make much of any money off it in 15 years, then that novel has been a commercial failure. While it’s possible than 20 years down the line it’ll suddenly become popular, it’s pretty unlikely. If I’m making a reasonable but not hugely successful living off the novel, I’m going to want to write more novels and keep the income coming in - continuing to make a small amount of money from a few sales of the book 16+ years later might be nice, but it’s not likely to be my primary means of supporting myself. This is doubly true for 28 years later. > > I’m also reasonably sure most books, music, games, and movies make the majority of their money in the first few years (although I’m failing to find the proper statistics to back that up). It is in fact only the incredibly successful works like Disney’s classics, Star Wars, Harry Potter, and so on, that can continue to pull in huge amounts of money decades after they’ve been released. And allowing those companies or people to maintain an exclusive stranglehold on publishing those works as well undoubtedly hurts creativity. > > The small author that never hits a fantastic success needs to regularly publish books to maintain their income; this doesn’t really change if copyright is only 28 years, or only 15 years, rather than lifetime + 70 years. Well, sort of. The big successes in novel writing managed to sell their first books quickly, which would be to their benefit under your scheme. Unfortunately, copyright inheres in a work as soon as it is “fixed”, by which is meant that the work is recorded in some medium from which it may be observed or reproduced. J.K. Rowling’s copyright in her first Harry Potter book started the moment she wrote it down, not the moment it was first published. If it had taken her five years to sell the book, she’d only have 10 years to earn from it. Given that she finished the book and started trying to sell it in 1995, that would mean that ripoff versions could have started appearing as early as 2010. Warner Brothers could very well have given her the finger on the movie rights and said, “We’ll just wait, thanks.” So much for her billions. Of course, conversely, she might have made even _more_ money as studios bid and scrambled to be first, before the crappy versions came out, but that would only happen for the absolute highest-value projects, and frankly it’s hard to imagine any movie studio spending squillions of dollars to make a movie when they only have 15 years to profit from it. George Lucas would probably have set fire to his entire work history by now just to keep other people from having it. There’d be no incentive to release movies more than a decade old on Blu-Ray or whatever new format comes next, because those copies would just be templates for super-pretty public domain copies shortly to follow. Most likely, we’d see a worsening of the current trend toward re-releasing movies with slight changes and added digital effects so that you can call it a “new work” and restart the copyright clock on it. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ip-and-copyright-what-is-your-view/634016/116 "2012-09-11T17:21:24Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > You’re living in a bizarro world. That’s not an argument, or a proof of anything. It’s another empty assertion, backed up by nothing. You’re not winning the argument, or impressing anybody, by continuing to do this, so why _are_ you doing it? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ip-and-copyright-what-is-your-view/634016/117 "2012-09-11T17:22:13Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > That’s not an argument, or a proof of anything. It’s another empty assertion, backed up by nothing. You’re not winning the argument, or impressing anybody, by continuing to do this, so why _are_ you doing it? I’ve already won. Now you’re just making bizarre claims. Let’s not continue this. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ip-and-copyright-what-is-your-view/634016/118 "2012-09-11T17:24:29Z")
> [@Max\_Torque](#): > > it’s hard to imagine any movie studio spending squillions of dollars to make a movie when they only have 15 years to profit from it. The vast majority of the profit on most movies is made in the few weeks following release, with a smaller but significant amount made in the few months after DVD release. It’s the extreme exception which is ever rereleased to a significant amount of cinemas. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ip-and-copyright-what-is-your-view/634016/119 "2012-09-11T17:34:26Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I’ve already won. Now you’re just making bizarre claims. Let’s not continue this. Perhaps you’d be prepare to run through your winning argument again. That would be the argument that shows the harm done to a content producer by someone who takes nothing - neither content nor money - from them, and in copying their work does not reduce sales or saleability of it. Or, you could show where any of my points there are wrong. Not simply _assert_ that they are wrong, demonstrate it. Of course, you won’t do that, as the ones that aren’t directly observable are trivially demonstrable. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ip-and-copyright-what-is-your-view/634016/120 "2012-09-11T17:50:05Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Perhaps you’d be prepare to run through your winning argument again. That would be the argument that shows the harm done to a content producer by someone who takes nothing - neither content nor money - from them, and in copying their work does not reduce sales or saleability of it. He does reduce sales. That’s the harm. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ip-and-copyright-what-is-your-view/634016.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ip-and-copyright-what-is-your-view/634016.md?page=7)