Is it necessarily? I don’t think so. I’ll concede that it’s nice to have a wide selection of books, movies, etc., but remember, copyright trades away our freedoms in order to stimulate production of such works. Even copyright supporters must realize that at some point, the trade-off is too great.
Name me one other area in which the owner of property claims to have his property rights infringed by millions of people who have never come within a thousand miles of him.
Most property owners don’t seem to demand nearly as much from other people as copyright holders do. The owner of the store down the street doesn’t care what I do inside my own home. My neighbors don’t care whether I connect my hypothetical BluRay player to my hypothetical HDTV with an encrypted or unencrypted connection, or how many songs per hour I skip on streaming radio stations, and they don’t sneak malware onto my computer to make sure I don’t do anything unauthorized. As long as I’m not doing something they can somehow notice, most property holders don’t try to interfere with my actions. But copyright holders want to interfere in transactions between third parties, and they want to limit the products and services available to third parties, to detect and prevent actions involving their so-called “property” that otherwise would go completely unnoticed.
Yes, those claims have been “explained” many times. They simply don’t add up. All the propaganda in the world can’t change the fact that copying doesn’t take anything away from anyone in any but a metaphorical sense - they may lose potential sales, but those sales never belonged to them in the first place. It’s a greedy view indeed to claim that I’ve taken my own money away from you when I decide not to buy your product.
This brings up an interesting aside. When negotiating a contract with a large publisher, I was pushing the paragraph that returned all rights to me if the publisher allowed the book to go out of print. The acquisitions editor said she’d put anything I wanted in there because in another ten years there wouldn’t be such a thing as “out of print” with the big publishing houses. With print-on-demand equipment, they’ll simply leave old books in their catalog and raise the price to reflect the extra cost of POD compared to traditional printing.
My guess is that 100 years from now, you’ll still be able to buy the majority of what’s being written now, and that percentage will go up every year.
You like the product enough to take it, but not enough to buy it. Which one of us is motivated by greed? Your arguments are disingenuous, and you’re simply trying to justify a philosophy based on dishonesty. You aren’t worth arguing with anymore.
• Even under today’s copyright laws, Snow White as written by the Brothers Grimm would have been in the public domain.
• The book Dumbo was under copyright, and Disney paid for the adaptation rights.
• The book Bambi was under copyright, and Disney paid for the adaptation rights.
• The composition Peter and the Wolf was under copyright, and Disney paid for the adaptation rights.
• The book The Wind in the Willows was under copyright, and Disney paid for the adaptation rights.
• Even under today’s copyright laws, Cinderella would have been in the public domain.
• The play Peter Pan was under copyright, and Disney paid for the adaptation rights.
• The story “Happy Dan, the Whistling Dog” that Lady and the Tramp was based on, was under copyright, and Disney paid for the adaptation rights.
• The movies Westward Ho the Wagons!, Johnny Tremain, and Perri were based on books that were under copyright, and Disney paid for the adaptation rights.
• The Zorro stories were under copyright, and Disney paid for the adaptation rights.
• The novel Old Yeller was under copyright, and Disney paid for the adaptation rights.
• Even under today’s copyright laws, Sleeping Beauty would have been in the public domain.
• The novel The Hound of Florence that The Shaggy Dog was based on, was under copyright, and Disney paid for the adaptation rights.
• The novel Pollyanna was under copyright, and Disney paid for the adaptation rights.
• Even under today’s copyright laws, Swiss Family Robinson would have been in the public domain.
• The novel One Hundred and One Dalmatians was under copyright, and Disney paid for the adaptation rights.
• The story “A Situation of Gravity” that The Absent Minded Professor was based on, was under copyright, and Disney paid for the adaptation rights.
• The movies Nomads of the North, Greyfriars Bobby, Big Red, Savage Sam, Miracle of the White Stallions, Summer Magic, The Incredible Journey, The Sword and the Stone, Dr. Syn, The Three Lives of Thomasina, The Moon-Spinners, Mary Poppins, Emil and the Detectives, Those Calloways, That Darn Cat!, The Ugly Dachshund, Follow Me, Boys!, Red Hugh, Prince of Donegal, Monkeys, Go Home!, The Happiest Millionaire, The Gnome-Mobile, and Blackbeard’s Ghost were all based on books that were under copyright, and Disney paid for the adaptation rights.
• The Winnie the Pooh stories were under copyright, and Disney paid for the adaptation rights.
The one who thinks I’m somehow obligated to buy it. There are plenty of things I like enough to enjoy for free, but wouldn’t pay for. Enjoying them for free doesn’t harm anyone, and it’s no more greedy than watching the sunset or listening to the radio. Now, if there were some kind of limit to the number of copies that could be made, such that my listening deprived someone else of the ability to listen but I continued anyway, maybe you’d have a point.
If that’s what you have to tell yourself to feel good about this discussion, go for it. And if you ever feel like examining my philosophy based on what it actually is, rather than what you tell yourself about my motivations, come back any time - it’s right here for you to read.
This is a classic example of why you not worth debating. You make a silly point and I call you on it and your response is not to acknowledge or concede but just to fly off on some tangent. No doubt a thread or two from now you’ll be once again telling people that artists are claiming a special privilege that no other property owners have because they think IP shouldn’t vanish when they die.
What absolute twaddle. Your apparent lack of experience or knowledge of complex real and personal (tangible) property rights and disputes causes you to imagine that such things as you describe above don’t happen in relation to tangible property, but they do.
Try keeping someone else’s property in your own home and see if the owner doesn’t care, for a start.
That you don’t think the creator of IP should have a right to sales is well known, but not the issue.
In your last post back you said the copyright owner lost nothing when there was copyright infringement. But now you accept that by copyright infringement the copyright owner loses potential sales. So while you like to pretend (to yourself as much as anyone I suspect) that the issue is cut and dried because copyright holders lose nothing by copyright infringement, you actually know that is not true. In fact, they lose nothing that you would allow them to have. Which is not at all the same thing.
You and your “obligation” schtick. Problem for you is, I’ve debated you too long to fall for your segues, strawmen and disingenuousness. Whenever we reach this point in the debate, you say that a copyright holder who won’t give you something unless you pay is suggesting that you are “obliged” to buy it. Which is nonsense, isn’t it?
But it does sound so much better to convince yourself that “these damn artists think I’m obliged to buy their product” than to acknowledge that “these damn artists think I’m obliged to pay for what they have that I want”, don’t it?
So you’re happy enough for someone to put in the effort to make something, but you won’t contribute to the cost of that by paying for it? But you’re not greedy. Nosirreebob, not you.
Interestingly enough, I agree with this. As I say, I don’t think copyright should be abolished – it does afford worthy protections and provide incentive. Bear with me, for this goes on awhile. Now:
Since you’re (at least) the second one to harp on this, I’m guessing I should have included a qualifier concerning “reading the threads” with something like “a bunch”. I’ve generally stopped reading them because (IME) they rapidly devolve into unreasoningly repetitive “uh-huh”, “nuh-uh” crap that’s not worth reading. I apologize if I’ve missed the sterling contributions to the debate that resolves the issues once and for all. Furthermore, I apologize because I don’t have time to wade through the crap; feel free to link to other threads and I’ll take a gander when I do have the time. If you think I’m arguing in bad faith, let me know and I’ll bow out. Deal?
To (a), I respond that a vanishingly small number of people argue for the actual abolishment of copyright. Mr2001 is one of them; there are always some that will take an extreme position. But, from what I’ve read, most of these debate from the anti-copyright stance stem from people criticizing the encroachment on fair-use, though they state it rather loosely. Y’know, things like: teachers not being able to supply educational materials, making personal copies of music or software, or repeated and seemingly limitless extensions of expiration terms.
This is immediately interpreted as saying “copyright is wrong”, when it is, in fact, no such thing. Rather, it is about the reasons underlying copyright (e.g., benefit to society, balancing personal and commercial use, or the appropriate length of time for compensation). To me, the main thrust of each – again, taking it for granted that the dispute is not about abolishment – comes down to the expiration limits and personal / commercial use. I should note that similar misinterpretations and misattributions are done by the other side; a “copyright has a legitimate purpose” statement becomes “everything about copyright is fine and dandy and shouldn’t be changed at all”. If you disagree with my assessment, I’ll accept that – but I’d ask for references where a majority argue for abolishing copyright.
As to (b), I see it as an extension of (a). The pro-copyright side, from what I see, takes the stance that criticizing copyright is equivalent to saying it should be abolished. In the same all-or-nothing absolutist manner, they equate it with “real” property and call it “theft” as a rhetorical device to bolster their argument. But defining “intellectual property” is problematic from the outset: How many notes define a melody? How many words are an acceptable quotation? How many lines of code? Is it the overarching theme, some derivatively similar creation, or the specific work (down to the letter, note, brushstroke, etc.)?
Furthermore, taking the absolutist view ignores some crucial subtlties: the fact that works are intangible, that a symbiotic relationship exists between the creator and others (i.e., without copies, the creator derives no benefit), that the laws themselves are at least partially responsible for pitting corporations against individual artists. I’d also point out that creators don’t usually create simply for money: the true creator does it because they love it. It’s what they would do anyway, given the time and resources. The result of this stance is that it’s not the creation itself that is important but the fame, money, status, etc. gotten from being the creator; if it was the creation itself, the creator would simply keep it for themselves or just give it away. The worst of those who place the value elsewhere might be called “hacks” – certainly, they cheapen the relative works of others, sacrificing skill (if they have it) and effort (if they put it forth) in the pursuit of a low-quality product that simply gets them paid.
Fuck off, prick. And take your ill-conceived analogies with you. How about I put forth a bad analogy: I suppose if you built a bicycle, you’d demand payment each and every time the person to whom you sold it took it out for a spin?
Oh, should I put some actual thought into what you wrote? Should I assume you have some reason for saying what you do? I should actually address your point? OK then, I apologize and take back my cussin’. As I said, I think there’s some merit in the idea, not that I think it’s appropriate. My point was simply this: if the creator was willing to sell their work for redistribution, that would be their reimbursement and it would be fair. Do I think that would be practical? No. More people benefit from the royalty model – the creator, the entity that funded the production, the rental store, etc.
Here’s the thing: “intellectual property” is a legal fabrication, much like the notion of “corporation as person”. And it serves a right and good purpose, as I keep saying over and over again. What is unusual about it, contrary to your incorrect assertion, is that one cannot possess it exclusively. Rather, the entire foundation of its “return on investment” is predicated on the fact that it must be copied and made available for any return to accrue. This is directly contrary to actual property. Let me ask you: should the terms of copyright be unlimited? If not, why not?
One more thing:
See? You cast this as if Evil Captor is arguing that copyright should be abolished. He isn’t.
This is an interesting development – the effect of (rapidly changing) technology on publishing. It also raises the need for data preservation; I think you might be too optimistic about your 100 years guess. For instance, have you ever tried to retrieve data collected more than 30 years ago? I have – it was on reel-to-reel tape in EBCIDIC format. Essentially worthless because someone who could provide data translation would’ve been absolutely cost prohibitive. I doubt very sincerely preservation of little read works are going to be high on publishers’ priority list. And that doesn’t even begin to consider data corruption.
Another interesting aspect of technology is that publishers serve less and less actual purpose, yet continue to derive the same (or increasing) levels of profit. Take an extreme example: academic publishing. A journal pays nothing for submission. And nothing for the reviewers. And nothing to the editors. And very little for document preparation, as academics have to submit “camera-ready” copy. Furthermore, it’s becoming common to only print a limited number of actual copies; they simply provide (restrict) access to the documents in electronic format.
But there’s more: they assume all rights to the work and consequently restrict access to scientific papers, such that unless one belongs to a subscribed institution (and subscriptions are expensive), there is no way recent research can be read by an interested individual. In doing so, they directly hinder the “progress of the useful sciences”.
Well that’s pretty much what it is. The question of whether copyright infringement is the functional equivalent of theft has been extensively debated on these boards. I have never seen anyone come up with a convincing argument to the contrary. The best the anti-copyright side can do is point out (shrilly, repeatedly and huffily) that as a matter of definition, copyright infringement is not in fact theft. Which is of course quite true. But not very important.
Perhaps you should read some basic legal texts on this issue. It’s all perfectly well explained and defined. Your ignorance on the topic may be a reason for you to tread cautiously in these debates but it is not a reason to decry copyright.
Indeed all true creators are also true scotsmen and never ever have sugar on their porridge.
Ahh, the beautiful, presumptuous, true artists live on air gambit. Do you enjoy what you do for a living, Digital Stimulus? Are you good at it? I sincerely hope you don’t expect to get paid. If you do, you’re a mere hack, and as such barely deserve to get paid.
Double standards, going for a song.
Sorry but you show no signs of understanding why what you said was inane.
Here’s the thing. You are arguing with a strawman. I am getting more than a little tired of your habit of attempting to shoehorn me into some position that you assume I have or attribute to me things that I never said. Try just reading what I actually write and dealing with it.
I never said that one can possess intellectual property exclusively. I have an understanding of copyright law. I know that what one can possess exclusively (subject to the usual exceptions) is the right to produce copies. That “pouf” sound was your argument going up in smoke.
Should the term of ownership of anything be unlimited? Should one’s ownership of land cease after say 80 years? There are certainly arguments one could raise to suggest so. These questions are endlessly debatable but are the heart of a much wider debate that goes to the heart of the capitalist system and private ownership. I don’t see any reason to get into that debate.
No I argue as if EC had said that copyright (just plain copyright, not the term of copyright or certain aspects of copyright, copyright, unqualified) hurt artists and writers. Which in fact is what he said.
If I could do that while the property was still in their home too, of course they wouldn’t care. They wouldn’t even notice.
OK, I’ll play your childish semantic game for a minute:
There’s a donation link on my web site, but I don’t think I’ve ever received anything from you. You’ve certainly never given me $10,000. Do you accept that I’ve lost $10,000 of your potential donations, and if so, when can I expect you to give it back?
[spoiler]What a dilemma! The solution is to realize that even though something might casually be described as “lost”, that doesn’t mean it was taken away, it doesn’t mean you ever really had it in the first place, and it doesn’t mean anybody owes it to you.
Sure, potential sales might be “lost” in the sense that they aren’t gained. But I’m sure you knew I was referring to the kind of loss where first you have something, then you don’t. Hell, a copyright holder might be on a diet at the same time someone is copying one of his works - OMG, he’s LOSING weight when someone infringes his copyright! And maybe he had placed a wager with a friend of his, saying that no one would ever copy one of his works - he just LOST that bet because of copying! But has he really “lost something” in context? Only in the minds of those who want to distract from the actual debate by playing pointless word games.[/spoiler]
Actually, they lose nothing that they ever had a legitimate claim to.
Yes, it is nonsense, but as far as I can tell, you keep pushing it anyway. Either I’m obligated to buy it from them, or I’m obligated not to watch/read/listen to it and not to get it from any other willing party.
Your premise is faulty: it’s not what they have that I want. It’s what my neighbor, my friend, or some stranger on a file sharing network has. There’s a voluntary transaction going on, and in order for that to happen, I have to give the other party what they want - but that other party isn’t the copyright holder, and they don’t want the same thing.
If I had asked them to make it, you might have a point here, but of course I didn’t ask them for anything. They put in that effort on their own, and it’s done. I might be glad that they did it, but I’m not indebted to them as a result.
Correctamundo, pallerino. Greedy would be expecting me to cover the costs of a decision you made on your own.
It’s quite simple: a main functional element of theft is that the person being robbed is deprived of the item that was stolen. In fact, I’d say that’s exactly the reason that theft is a bad thing - no one would care if a neighborhood thug “stole” their car by leaving it exactly where it was, undisturbed. But that element does not exist at all in copyright infringement.
In other words, you think copyrights should last forever, just like real ownership. Right?
I am sorry that I spent so much time on my last reply. So much for trying to explain myself; I attempted to engage you and got very little of substance back. So, I’ll (try to) keep this short:
Note: I’m asking the following for elucidation, not as an argument, since it seems that I need to point out when I do so. So, copyright infringement is not theft, but it’s functional equivalent. Can you qualify for me what the actual harm is in theivery? Similarly, can you qualify for me what the actual harm is in copyright infringement? Why are they not equivalent, but only functionally equivalent?
Piffle. Were I not to be paid for what I do, I’d do something else to support myself. And proceed to do what I now do as time and resources permit. I am fortunate enough that they coincide. Which has little to do whether I expect payment for my creative work, much less whether I deserve it.
But exclusivity is central to the difference between “real” and “intellectual” property, resulting in the difference between “theft” and “copyright infringement”. Which leads into the next thing:
Then you’re missing what is, IMHO, a foundational part of the debate. And I ask again: should the terms of copyright be unlimited? If not, why not?
For context:
It isn’t obvious to you that he isn’t making the unqualified statement that copyright is bad? It isn’t obvious that he thinks copyright for the protection of “artists and writers” is right and proper? If it is obvious (and it is to me), then why would you say he made an “unqualified” point? Is it so important to you to “win” that you purposely misconstrue his statements?
Relevance? I was merely engaging InvisibleWombat in a topic that he brought up as tangential. I also find it interesting, and am merely suggesting that perhaps there are issues that he’s not considering. Perhaps he is aware of them; I have no way of knowing.
I’m not Princhester, but I’m willing to answer. I design videogames for a living. What do you do for a living Digital Stimulus?
I’ll just repeat what I’ve said in other threads. If copyright were to magically vanish tomorrow then entertainment wouldn’t go away, but entertainment business models would change radically.
Movies would no longer be released on DVD and movie studios would revert to showing movies exclusively in theaters. Videogames would switch back to the arcade business model. Musicians would stop releasing CDs and spend most of their time giving live concerts. I’m not quite sure how the publishing industry would adapt. Private libraries, perhaps.
The point is that if you take away the legal tools that allow creators and companies to draw revenue from creative works that are circulating in the public sphere then, for their own survival, the owners will be forced to withdraw those works from the public sphere and display them only in venues where they can control access so tightly that no copies can be made.
So people will still make new movies and videogames and music. You just won’t be able to enjoy them at home. You’ll have to go to a theater or an arcade.
Personally I don’t have a problem with the current length of copyright. The longer the ownership term, the greater the value of the asset to the creator. I’m not even sure permanent copyright would be a bad idea. Copyright is almost effectively permanent now, and yet we live in a vast sea of new art and entertainment. It certainly doesn’t seem to be choking off creativity. If anything, it’s nourishing it.
Sure, longer terms are great for copyright holders, but do you have any concern at all for what everyone else must give up to support them?
I really think it’s bizarre to measure the success of copyright law solely by the number of copyrighted things we can buy at the store. You might as well measure the success of making Comcast your local cable monopoly by counting the number of Comcast customers in town. You’re ignoring the negatives: the works that people are prevented from creating or distributing, the ways people are discouraged or prevented from using copyrighted materials they’ve bought, the additional cost customers must pay because of the lack of competition in distribution, etc.
I never said you were obligated to buy it. I don’t believe that you hold any such obligation, unless you take something that doesn’t belong to you. Then, you should pay the owner for it.
I’ve read it. To paraphrase, you believe that I don’t own the product of my labors. You believe that when I spend a year writing a book or computer program, you have the right to take it and do as you please without paying for it. You would rather violate the law as it exists today than do what’s legal while lobbying for the elimination of copyright law. You admit to breaking the law and adamantly deny that you’re financially damaging the people who produce the products you enjoy. Is that accurate?
Maybe you’re right, though, that I shouldn’t have characterized it as a philosophy of dishonesty–you’re very upfront about it. You don’t appear to be lying about whether you violate copyrights. You wear your flagrant disregard for the law like a flag. I retract my implication that your philosophy is dishonest. It is a discourteous, rude, hurtful, shortsighted, and illegal philosophy, but not dishonest.
I actually have data saved from 30 years ago, and it’s quite readable. The reason is that company data germane to your business isn’t stuffed away on shelves anymore. It’s updated and translated with each equipment upgrade. When a single disk (okay–a single RAID array) can hold the text of every book a publishing company owns, they’re not going to upgrade just a few of them. They’re going to create a conversion program and convert the whole kit and caboodle. That’s exactly why my old data is still accessible.
And, by the way, conversion from EBCDIC to ASCII is quite simple. There are free programs to do it, and I used to assign it as an excercise for my programming classes. Having the data on 9-track tape is another issue entirely!