JRD, this discussion with Mr2001 has been done over and over. Try doing a search on my username and his. You will find that a standard thread on this topic with Mr2001 usually reaches this stage by about the last page or two.
Mr2001’s suscription only model may work in an extremely limited way. There are subscription radio stations, for example.
However, the complete lack of business certainty that the model allows would result in a massive flight of investment from IP production, which does not appear to be what most people want. This doesn’t bother Mr2001 because he puts his “let the information be free” ideal above all other considerations, come what may.
As I said earlier, I’ve done this debate with Mr2001 to death, and absent any new points he might raise, have no interest in going over it all again. But I thought I might save you some time.
Pretty much. The profit-driven creator can try to create that demand by promoting his services, though.
If it doesn’t actually get created to spec, they’ll get their money back, at least as I envision it. Deciding whether the finished work meets the author’s promise is one role that can be filled by an eBay-like middleman. As for getting a refund if they don’t like it, they’d be in the same boat as someone who doesn’t like his haircut or landscaping.
Well, any model has to assume most people will act rationally.
As a practical compromise, I’d be pretty happy with scaling back copyright terms and adding a compulsory license, so that while you’d still have to pay an author for distributing his work, you wouldn’t have to obtain his permission, thus clearing the road for parodies, adaptations, translations, sequels, mixes and mashups, etc. as long as royalties are paid.
Ah yes, business certainty. That’s why the RIAA desperately pushes new legislation every year, files thousands of lawsuits on the shakiest possible grounds, and stuffs their albums full of spyware, right? Because their business model, based on doing the work up front and seeking payment later, is so certain!
I agree with this guy. What we have here is an outdated business model. A bunch of people rightly fearing for their future in a business that worked in the past are now guilting (and legislating) us all into just handing our money over. Because if we don’t its “stealing”.
Vinyl records and celluloid films are hard to make at home. If everybody had their own printing press back in the eighteenth century, we would probably have no such thing as copyright laws. Because today we have the power to make copies on our own, people are beginning to see that paying ridiculous sums for a copy is no longer economically sound. I’d like to reiterate that I see buying an album or book or whatever as buying a copy. The initial “intellectual property” was bought by the publisher or record company, and now they’ve made a pretty package to put it in and sell to me. I like the pretty packages of both books and CDs, along with the information on them, enough to buy quite a few over the course of a year. But I don’t value the package enough to equate opting for a simpler, cheaper package with somehow picking the ideas right out of the artist’s brain (or the money right out of his pocket).
I can easily see why this is such a touchy issue. Both management and “the help”, i.e., the artists, have sunk enormous amounts of time, energy and money into something that doesn’t work. Its not their fault. Time’s a killer, and technological changes can ruin the greatest of businesses. But it’s time for a better business model, not guilt and more laws. I equate copyright infringement more with loaning my friend my copy of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone than with bankrobbers and muggers.
Under your model, most of the current production of IP would simply cease. When you’ve come up with a refinement of your model that get’s over that eensy weensy little problem, we can start talking about the business problems of the present model.
To the extent that it would happen, I don’t think it’d be a problem… but I suppose it would seem that way to someone whose income depends on the status quo.
You’ve admitted that under your model (as an example) large budget movies would go. Very many people like seeing those. You’ve admitted that under your model you couldn’t make money out of writing books, so I don’t suppose they are going to get written. Lot’s of people like reading those. You’ve come up with no viable way of making money out of music except by relying on the goodwill of hardcore fans. So that’s going to be a whole load less income and necessarily far fewer professional musicians. Which is going to be a shame for all their fans.
But by all means do try to pretend this is only about the artists themselves. You seem to be fooling some.
You are correct – did you miss the part where I said I haven’t ever been published? I have done a lot of work on those manuscripts, and no one wants them, and that’s fine (well, not fine, necessarily, but it’s the way the market works, and I can live with it.) But if any of them ever are published, and you or anyone else begins selling pirated copies, you will be thieves. If you came to my house and took the manuscripts and sold copies of them without paying me, you would be thieves. I also build Adirondack furniture, which I do sell rather successfully hereabouts. Were you to take some of my furniture from my shop and sell it to someone else, or even just use it yourself, without paying me, you would be a thief. Are you starting to understand the theme here? I mean, (at the risk of drawing a warning from a moderator) do you truly know the difference between right and wrong?
Actually, that’s ridiculous and I’ve said no such thing. I’ve written plenty that you can criticize already; do you really need to make up something new just to knock it down?
I guess that statement makes sense if you consider paying for a service to be “goodwill”. Do you?
I know what you’re going for, but one of those things is not like the others. See, in [1], nothing of yours has been taken away from you. (No, the money that someone else might use in the future to buy your product is not yours.) In [2] and [3], something has: the manuscripts and the furniture, respectively.
I think so. Suggesting that I have no conscience just because I disagree with you about copying files… that’s wrong. Right?
The only way that you have ever suggested that one could make money out of writing books was by some harebrained scheme involving donations for writing instalments. You later admitted that the scheme didn’t work even for Stephen King one of the most successful and popular writers alive. You also accepted that this scheme would be even harder to make work for someone unknown. If that isn’t admitting that under your model one couldn’t make money out of writing books, it’s near enough for me.
Depends on the service.
If the service involves achievement of an objective outcome, then no, the payment is not an act of goodwill. If the objective outcome is not achieved I will have remedies against the serviceperson.
If the service is production of art, then my payment is basically a goodwill act, a leap of faith. If I don’t like the art produced, I have no remedy.
Indeed if I could expand on that theme, your usage of the word “service” in relation to the production of artwork on subscription is an attempt to co-opt the term to an activity for which it is inapt. What you are really talking about is having groups of people commission artworks. Something which necessarily involves a leap of goodwill and faith towards the artist by the commissioner/s.
BTW, Mr. 2001, I have some reservation about pointing to the “e-Bay model” for IP, in that e-Bay as we know it is built upon the classic form of trade for finite goods and services: e-Bayers are offering goods and services for which there is a real limitation in availability of tangible number or of access. It cuts out the middleman but it does NOT cut out the "scarcity’ basis for supply/demand: there is still a finite number of old Nikons to be bought and sold. Whereas with, say, the newest album from Don Omar, or the latest Kate White novel, in the absolute-distribution universe all it would take would be one single sale and poof nobody else would have to buy it.
Which is where your “interest in ensuring new production” demand pool comes in – get Omar or Kate paid ahead of time from those who value their work enough to pay for it, maye with added-value benefits from being paying customers, who will in turn make a generous gift to humanity of that output. I suppose I just am not convinced that the “demand pool” would be a realistic driver for the more artistic/literary realm of the creative field, as opposed to software and other concrete-application creations (e.g. commercial art, advertising copy) that can be commissioned “to spec”. But how do you “commission to spec” Smells Like Teen Spirit, or Brokeback Mountain?
As mentioned, in the strict application of the model we’d have artists and composers living strictly by working to commission from a source of patronage (a buying pool that hires you to write to spec is a patron just as much as the Pope), only that whatever else they created on the side “for art’s sake” would gain them only the least material benefit. *We can already do that under the current system! * Someone can already live on a shoestring writing newspaper horoscopes while trying to get people interested in buying his novel.
Surely. And he may even join other authors to pool together resources and hire someone knowledgeable and experienced in promotions and audience and market dynamics to do that work full-time and … congratulations, we have re-created the syndication, agent, publisher and promoter business, and they’ll soon start taking a bigger cut again. Besides, about that $20K piece of software… say the initial person who commissions it from you agrees to pay you your $20K, but meanwhile he says to the other 999 people: I know you want this to be made. You all pay ME $50 a pop, I have the only copy of the code (you made it on his machines and recorded it on his disks). There you go: a publisher/distributor/middleman, work created first, sold later.
Hmm… Throw in some sort of “right of first refusal” so the rights-holders can try and get a better/more attractive offer within X period of time, and you may have the start of something there. However I’m not too sanguine about a compulsory license for any and allderivative work (as opposed to republishing and distributing) during the term of the copyright. The impact of someone writing/filming Harry Potter and the Snuff Gang Rape of Herminone would surely be worth more than just a standard royalty. (BTW, parody IS protected under Fair Use, but you can’t just “declare” a piece to be parody on your mere say-so)
I think the ultimate problem is that Mr2001 is in an era in which monetary compensation is still the norm. Too bad the Star Trek universe is fictional, that’d be perfect for him!
Copying files. That’s how you see it, “copying files.”
“Oh, hi, Mr. King, no, I’m not violating your copyright – I’m just making a few copies of some pieces of paper.”
You can make copies of all kinds of things. When you make a copy of something that is, in fact, for sale, with the intent of enjoying the use or consumption of it without paying for it, it’s theft. Software, audio files, video files whatever. If you pay money to watch a movie, you enter into an implied contract that you will, in return for your money, get to watch the movie, then leave the theater. If you rent a video, you enter into a contract that you will watch the video, then return it to the store. If you buy the video, you enter into a contract that you will view the video repeatedly – even with others – without using it to make money.
Now, you may not *like * the contract, but not liking it doesn’t release you from its conditions. I personally don’t like mandatory seat belt laws, but I obey them while I work to get them repealed (it’s a long haul, to be sure.) If you want to work within the system to change copyright law, fine, go ahead. I’ll even agree with you that some of the people being protected actually do little or nothing to earn their dollars. But none of that changes the law as it exists.
Of course, you can continue to download and make copies, and see yourself as a revolutionary. But I still see you as a thief.
Hmm. Which is a haircut: an objective outcome or the production of art?
My use of the word “service” is simply to distinguish the nature of an author’s work from that of someone who manufactures a product.
Indeed. Don’t take my comparison to eBay too literally; the similarity is that this hypothetical company would provide infrastructure so that people who want to spend money on something could meet up with people who want to make money by providing it, in an environment where both parties felt reasonably safe about the transaction.
Well, the spec doesn’t have to come from the audience. If a filmmaker has an idea for a new movie, or a musician has an idea for a new song, the only thing standing between him and funding is his ability to convince an audience that his idea is worth paying for.
(But if Smells Like Teen Spirit wouldn’t have been made under my system, I consider that a benefit. ;))
Not quite. As an author, you can ask for funding and then release your work into the public domain, but as a member of the public, you have no choice; your ability to enjoy new works and existing works is conditioned on the author’s approval. The public can’t reap the benefits of my proposal today without convincing every living author, and the estate of every dead author, to release their work for public use.
I think your point is that if my my proposed system increased authors’ profits, they’d already be using it. But my goal isn’t to provide a business model that’s more favorable to authors, it’s to give the public back the rights that copyright law has taken away.
If they can provide a useful service to authors and make a living out of it, all without anyone having any exclusive rights to control distribution, then more power to them!
But his isn’t the only copy once it’s sold! As soon as someone else has a copy, that person can freely copy it, reverse engineer it, modify it, or whatever. The best Guy #1 can hope to do is make Guys #2-#1000 sign a contract promising not to do any of that; if one of them does anyway, Guy #1 can sue, but only if he can figure out which one did it, and even then he won’t be able to do anything about the millions of copies circulating on the internet. If Guy #1 has the foresight to realize what will happen, he’ll never get into that scheme in the first place.
Can’t agree, sorry. I think we all have the right to make our own derivative works, even against the author’s wishes, as long as it’s clear who is writing what. Why should a parody of Harry Potter be protected but not an unauthorized pornographic sequel, when neither of them claim to have been written by J. K. Rowling and neither of them are likely to replace Rowling’s original work in readers’ shopping carts?
Right, and you still may find yourself in court having to convince a judge that your work is a parody.
Good to see you’re paying attention.
Interesting, mind if I have a try?
When you walk across a street when the light is, in fact, indicating “DONT WALK”, it’s rape.
I think I’ve got it.
Ooh, this is a fun one. Must restrain myself.
If you read the rest of this post, you enter into a contract that you will donate $100 to the Electronic Frontier Foundation in my name.
But you see, there is no contract, and no need to be released from its conditions. A contract is an agreement which two parties voluntarily enter into. You can’t bind someone else to a contract just by saying they’re bound to it. So although I sure wouldn’t mind you sending a check to the EFF, I don’t expect you to do it, I don’t think you’re obligated to do it, and I don’t think you’re a thief if you choose not to do it.
Of course. No one’s saying it does. However, the law as it exists is not just unfair but unenforceable; it’s violated by millions of people every day, despite constant streams of lawsuits, new laws, and invasive anti-copying technology. People clearly are not waiting for their legislators to get out of Big Content’s pocket and change the law, when they can violate it as casually as they’d walk across an intersection against the light.
I think if you check civil case law, Mr2001, you’ll find that you enter into all kinds of implied but no less binding contracts every day of your life. When you rent a movie, buy a ticket or buy a lamp, you enter into implied and binding contracts. Tacit agreement is as binding as implicit agreement, as long as either paty is willing to enforce the contract. I know, this is a real stunner to some people, but it’s absolutely true.
Quote: “When you walk across a street when the light is, in fact, indicating “DONT WALK”, it’s rape.” That’s not even a nice try. It’s just sophomoric.
Actually, my contract with the movie rental company was spelled out when I signed up. And, just like the implied contract when I pay for anything else, it’s between me and the entity I’m paying - not between me and the movie studio, or the director, or the president of the MPAA.
Finally, the mere existence of implied contracts in situations where things are bought doesn’t imply anything specific about the nature of those contracts. They tend not to limit what the buyer does with the item. You seem to think someone who buys a movie is implicitly agreeing not to use it to make money, based on your own assertion that that’s part of the agreement, I guess. If we accept that, then who’s to say there isn’t a similar clause in the implicit contract when you buy a car, or a band saw, or a tube of toothpaste?
Of course, our little contract was spelled out explicitly, so there’s no need for us to quibble about what you tacitly agreed to, and now that I think about it, your argument is almost convincing. When you send that check to the EFF, tell them to make the shirt an XL, would you?
It was meant to be as sophomoric as the quote I was responding to.
You realize you are just moving to the opposite extreme from the content industry, by stripping the rights-holder of any power or benefit beyond negotiating his one-time initial payment for “piecework”, and a “compulsory licese” over which s/he has absolutely no control whatsoever.
Your “compromise” consists of eliminating the abuse of copyrights by essentially making copyrights something merely nominal. The purpose of the copyright and patent system is to incentivize intellectial creation by granting for a limited period certain exclusive rights to exploit that creation. Your advocacy for the elimination of the “exclusive” part of it is morally equal, and just as contrary to the spirit of the legal concept, as the content industry’s ongoing virtual elimination of the “limited” aspect.
Now, if what you believe is that the right of all to benefit from intellectual creation is absolute and over-trumping of everything else; that all intellectual creation once it comes out of our brains and into any readable media must become the Common Heritage of Mankind, then I believe we must respectfully agree to disagree.
I don’t think so. There’s still an incentive: cold hard cash. Getting paid when people distribute or build upon your work is plenty of incentive, isn’t it? It seems to me that the primary justification for granting authors the ability to decide who may distribute or build upon their work, and for what purpose, is simply tradition: some people have come to expect that kind of control and they’ll resist attempts to limit it.
