Slashdot Mirror

Congratulations, you've reinvented The Digital Art Auction.

I would like to see it used more though, since the quicker people start using that, the quicker we can phase out copyright in general.

"Why is making it easy for people to steal ethical?"

Come now, if you want an honest response, quit with the loaded questions.

Not that I necessarily agree with everything he has to say, but go read what Crosbie has to say and then talk to him some:

http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/

all the best,

drew

Copyright is not written into the constitution. It would not be possible to write it in in any case, given a state granted monopoly could not be recognised as a natural right of the people.

People have a natural, exclusive right to their private property, which includes their unpublished writings and designs. This is the right that the constitution expressly empowered the government to secure.

The constitution can only recognise rights, it cannot grant them.

Granting of privileges (legal rights as some term them) is something the crown or government does, and unfortunately in the case of the US, unconstitutionally in the form of copyright and patent.

For more explanation see:
Constitutional Sanction
Mythologising Copyright
An Author's Exclusive Right

Copyright is not written into the constitution. It would not be possible to write it in in any case, given a state granted monopoly could not be recognised as a natural right of the people.

People have a natural, exclusive right to their private property, which includes their unpublished writings and designs. This is the right that the constitution expressly empowered the government to secure.

The constitution can only recognise rights, it cannot grant them.

Granting of privileges (legal rights as some term them) is something the crown or government does, and unfortunately in the case of the US, unconstitutionally in the form of copyright and patent.

For more explanation see:
Constitutional Sanction
Mythologising Copyright
An Author's Exclusive Right

Copyright is not written into the constitution. It would not be possible to write it in in any case, given a state granted monopoly could not be recognised as a natural right of the people.

People have a natural, exclusive right to their private property, which includes their unpublished writings and designs. This is the right that the constitution expressly empowered the government to secure.

The constitution can only recognise rights, it cannot grant them.

Granting of privileges (legal rights as some term them) is something the crown or government does, and unfortunately in the case of the US, unconstitutionally in the form of copyright and patent.

For more explanation see:
Constitutional Sanction
Mythologising Copyright
An Author's Exclusive Right

No, I mean "without copyright", explicitly.

Read The Digital Art Auction and Street Performer Protocol (co-written by Bruce Schneier, no less). Both detail a way of making money in a world where copyright law does not exist.

Which it shouldn't.

The US constitution did not specify that author's should be granted a reproduction monopoly, but that their exclusive right to their writings should be secured.

See An Author's Exclusive Right for more detail.

I fail to see how having copyright extend 75 years past the death of the artist encourages said artist to produce anything either before or after they die.

I am alive today, right now, and can not imagine the world 75 years after I die. Why should such a distant future (at least 75 years into the future, and hopefully many more), affect my decision making process now regarding creating new art work?

Surely I should be creating art work now to benefit myself right now? (Or more likely for most of the good artists, they would be producing stuff anyway.)

Having a long copyright does nothing to benefit artists, but only parasites and other scum.

Some websites with arguments against copyright
http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/index.php?id=52
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-copyright

I wouldn't be so quick to lay the blame for copyright with the Founding Fathers. See Mythologising Copyright. Copyright was enacted 3 years after the constitution.

Even the GPL respects an author's (constitutionally recognised) exclusive rights, it simply undoes the monopoly (unconstitutionally) granted by copyright over published works.

You may be amused by:
http://tdaa.digitalproductions.co.uk/history/bcbm.htm

It is a shibbolethic answer to the question, i.e. there is no explanation.

It simply suggests that you won't need an explanation as to why copyright is unethical unless you need an explanation as to why slavery is unethical.

I've touched on the ethics of copyright and patent umpteen times on my blog, but here's a post that goes into some background on natural rights that might shed a tad more light:
http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/index.php?id=112

Steep slope?

I climbed that one last week just before breakfast:

http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/index.php?id=119

There is 'innocent of infringement', and then there is 'innocent' as in having done no wrong (irrespective of what the law says).

Check out the law on copyright, and you'll find that is fundamentally unethical.

How is Copyright Fundamentally Unethical?

We are all innocent when it comes to sharing or building upon published works - with or without their copyright holders' permission.

"I will not accept the enslavement of my fellow man, nor any imposition upon his liberty, as reward for the publication of my art"

Your assertion that a lack of impenetrable copyright protection equals a loss of profit for the company generating the product protected is false.

In fact, I'd go as far as to say that companies, even in the IP field, do not need copyright to flourish.

Take a look at The Digital Art Auction. Basically, customers bid on a product, stating how much they'd be willing to pay for its release. Then, at a predetermined time when the producer reaches some number X at which he'd make Y profit, he releases the product and charges anyone who bit at or above X, $X. These successful bidders get a copy of the product, and those who bid below get nothing, though the game is now likely public domain so they could get a copy if they wanted.

The idea here is that even though freeloaders can get a copy upon release, if they don't bid what they actually would pay for the product, the product wouldn't be released (or at least, wouldn't be released as soon).

There are a bunch of different ideas as to how this could be done, but suffice it to say that a creative marketplace without copyright can exist where everyone gets paid.

Here's a recent post of mine on IP - excerpts of others follow below it.

URL to first is: http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/index.php?id=116
URL to rest is: http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/?q=intellectual+property

Natural Intellectual Property Unnaturally Privileged

Potentially having high market value, an intellectual work must be regarded as property in its own right. Among other things, this is because its value, whether utilitarian or aesthetic, can be appropriated by theft (irrespective of the possibility that any number of copies may remain with its possessor).

Despite crazy definitions to the contrary, thieves do not have uppermost in their minds the concept or intent of denying a legitimate owner the use of their property, but rather the concept and intent of seizing valuable/saleable property without payment (where the effort of theft is expected to be lower than the amount expected to be recovered through possession/use/benefit/exchange of the stolen property).

One cannot simply have a statutory penalty for violation of someone's privacy right. One must also consider the market value of the intellectual property so appropriated, and ideally the cost of its return/repossession.

The fundamental flaw in most people's notions of IP is not primarily that creation confers ownership (this tends to be coincident even with a first-comer idea), but that one should continue to own one's IP even after one has parted with it (sale or gift). But for this, the legitimate owner of a book cannot be stealing its author's property by making copies of their purchased book, unless one sustains the idea that the author owns all copies of their book even after they've sold them.

So it's quite possible to accept intellectual property as arising out of natural law, e.g. you write a book, you have absolute ownership and control over that book (even without the state's support, an individual can expect to protect it). Similarly with copies: you make a copy, you have absolute ownership and control over that copy. However, the author has no natural right to control what people do with the copies they purchase, e.g. making further copies or derivatives. Privileging the author to the contrary (for the publisher's benefit) is the unnatural misstep, the state's attachment of strings that nature did not.

Copyright is unnatural. All state granted monopolies are unnatural, patent included.

However, despite the unnatural privileges granted to its creators, intellectual property is nevertheless natural. The effective monopoly over access to one's private domain and control over the material and intellectual properties within it is also natural, and thus to be protected by the state.

http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/?q=intellectual+property

Restore Everyone's Intellectual Property Rights - Abolish Copyright ...A sheet of paper is material property. A poem is intellectual property. Aside from the practical issues arising from ... to manufacture copies or derivatives of their own intellectual property unless they have obtained licence from the ... to a publisher. Without copyright, purchasers of intellectual property enjoy the restoration of their natural right to ... restoration of rights does not weaken respect for intellectual property, but strengthens it. There is still no right to ...
http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/index.php?id=96 148 days ago

IP is Indeed Property ..., copyright makes people think that all intellectual property is a pretence, even private intellectual property ... because copyright is about pretending th

Here's a recent post of mine on IP - excerpts of others follow below it.

URL to first is: http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/index.php?id=116
URL to rest is: http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/?q=intellectual+property

Natural Intellectual Property Unnaturally Privileged

Potentially having high market value, an intellectual work must be regarded as property in its own right. Among other things, this is because its value, whether utilitarian or aesthetic, can be appropriated by theft (irrespective of the possibility that any number of copies may remain with its possessor).

Despite crazy definitions to the contrary, thieves do not have uppermost in their minds the concept or intent of denying a legitimate owner the use of their property, but rather the concept and intent of seizing valuable/saleable property without payment (where the effort of theft is expected to be lower than the amount expected to be recovered through possession/use/benefit/exchange of the stolen property).

One cannot simply have a statutory penalty for violation of someone's privacy right. One must also consider the market value of the intellectual property so appropriated, and ideally the cost of its return/repossession.

The fundamental flaw in most people's notions of IP is not primarily that creation confers ownership (this tends to be coincident even with a first-comer idea), but that one should continue to own one's IP even after one has parted with it (sale or gift). But for this, the legitimate owner of a book cannot be stealing its author's property by making copies of their purchased book, unless one sustains the idea that the author owns all copies of their book even after they've sold them.

So it's quite possible to accept intellectual property as arising out of natural law, e.g. you write a book, you have absolute ownership and control over that book (even without the state's support, an individual can expect to protect it). Similarly with copies: you make a copy, you have absolute ownership and control over that copy. However, the author has no natural right to control what people do with the copies they purchase, e.g. making further copies or derivatives. Privileging the author to the contrary (for the publisher's benefit) is the unnatural misstep, the state's attachment of strings that nature did not.

Copyright is unnatural. All state granted monopolies are unnatural, patent included.

However, despite the unnatural privileges granted to its creators, intellectual property is nevertheless natural. The effective monopoly over access to one's private domain and control over the material and intellectual properties within it is also natural, and thus to be protected by the state.

http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/?q=intellectual+property

Restore Everyone's Intellectual Property Rights - Abolish Copyright ...A sheet of paper is material property. A poem is intellectual property. Aside from the practical issues arising from ... to manufacture copies or derivatives of their own intellectual property unless they have obtained licence from the ... to a publisher. Without copyright, purchasers of intellectual property enjoy the restoration of their natural right to ... restoration of rights does not weaken respect for intellectual property, but strengthens it. There is still no right to ...
http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/index.php?id=96 148 days ago

IP is Indeed Property ..., copyright makes people think that all intellectual property is a pretence, even private intellectual property ... because copyright is about pretending th

Here's a recent post of mine on IP - excerpts of others follow below it.

URL to first is: http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/index.php?id=116
URL to rest is: http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/?q=intellectual+property

Natural Intellectual Property Unnaturally Privileged

Potentially having high market value, an intellectual work must be regarded as property in its own right. Among other things, this is because its value, whether utilitarian or aesthetic, can be appropriated by theft (irrespective of the possibility that any number of copies may remain with its possessor).

Despite crazy definitions to the contrary, thieves do not have uppermost in their minds the concept or intent of denying a legitimate owner the use of their property, but rather the concept and intent of seizing valuable/saleable property without payment (where the effort of theft is expected to be lower than the amount expected to be recovered through possession/use/benefit/exchange of the stolen property).

One cannot simply have a statutory penalty for violation of someone's privacy right. One must also consider the market value of the intellectual property so appropriated, and ideally the cost of its return/repossession.

The fundamental flaw in most people's notions of IP is not primarily that creation confers ownership (this tends to be coincident even with a first-comer idea), but that one should continue to own one's IP even after one has parted with it (sale or gift). But for this, the legitimate owner of a book cannot be stealing its author's property by making copies of their purchased book, unless one sustains the idea that the author owns all copies of their book even after they've sold them.

So it's quite possible to accept intellectual property as arising out of natural law, e.g. you write a book, you have absolute ownership and control over that book (even without the state's support, an individual can expect to protect it). Similarly with copies: you make a copy, you have absolute ownership and control over that copy. However, the author has no natural right to control what people do with the copies they purchase, e.g. making further copies or derivatives. Privileging the author to the contrary (for the publisher's benefit) is the unnatural misstep, the state's attachment of strings that nature did not.

Copyright is unnatural. All state granted monopolies are unnatural, patent included.

However, despite the unnatural privileges granted to its creators, intellectual property is nevertheless natural. The effective monopoly over access to one's private domain and control over the material and intellectual properties within it is also natural, and thus to be protected by the state.

http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/?q=intellectual+property

Restore Everyone's Intellectual Property Rights - Abolish Copyright ...A sheet of paper is material property. A poem is intellectual property. Aside from the practical issues arising from ... to manufacture copies or derivatives of their own intellectual property unless they have obtained licence from the ... to a publisher. Without copyright, purchasers of intellectual property enjoy the restoration of their natural right to ... restoration of rights does not weaken respect for intellectual property, but strengthens it. There is still no right to ...
http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/index.php?id=96 148 days ago

IP is Indeed Property ..., copyright makes people think that all intellectual property is a pretence, even private intellectual property ... because copyright is about pretending th

Here's a recent post of mine on IP - excerpts of others follow below it.

URL to first is: http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/index.php?id=116
URL to rest is: http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/?q=intellectual+property

Natural Intellectual Property Unnaturally Privileged

Potentially having high market value, an intellectual work must be regarded as property in its own right. Among other things, this is because its value, whether utilitarian or aesthetic, can be appropriated by theft (irrespective of the possibility that any number of copies may remain with its possessor).

Despite crazy definitions to the contrary, thieves do not have uppermost in their minds the concept or intent of denying a legitimate owner the use of their property, but rather the concept and intent of seizing valuable/saleable property without payment (where the effort of theft is expected to be lower than the amount expected to be recovered through possession/use/benefit/exchange of the stolen property).

One cannot simply have a statutory penalty for violation of someone's privacy right. One must also consider the market value of the intellectual property so appropriated, and ideally the cost of its return/repossession.

The fundamental flaw in most people's notions of IP is not primarily that creation confers ownership (this tends to be coincident even with a first-comer idea), but that one should continue to own one's IP even after one has parted with it (sale or gift). But for this, the legitimate owner of a book cannot be stealing its author's property by making copies of their purchased book, unless one sustains the idea that the author owns all copies of their book even after they've sold them.

So it's quite possible to accept intellectual property as arising out of natural law, e.g. you write a book, you have absolute ownership and control over that book (even without the state's support, an individual can expect to protect it). Similarly with copies: you make a copy, you have absolute ownership and control over that copy. However, the author has no natural right to control what people do with the copies they purchase, e.g. making further copies or derivatives. Privileging the author to the contrary (for the publisher's benefit) is the unnatural misstep, the state's attachment of strings that nature did not.

Copyright is unnatural. All state granted monopolies are unnatural, patent included.

However, despite the unnatural privileges granted to its creators, intellectual property is nevertheless natural. The effective monopoly over access to one's private domain and control over the material and intellectual properties within it is also natural, and thus to be protected by the state.

http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/?q=intellectual+property

Restore Everyone's Intellectual Property Rights - Abolish Copyright ...A sheet of paper is material property. A poem is intellectual property. Aside from the practical issues arising from ... to manufacture copies or derivatives of their own intellectual property unless they have obtained licence from the ... to a publisher. Without copyright, purchasers of intellectual property enjoy the restoration of their natural right to ... restoration of rights does not weaken respect for intellectual property, but strengthens it. There is still no right to ...
http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/index.php?id=96 148 days ago

IP is Indeed Property ..., copyright makes people think that all intellectual property is a pretence, even private intellectual property ... because copyright is about pretending th

Even better, things like The Digital Art Auction and Street Performer Protocol explicitly outline steps that one can take to both make money, and release their works into the public domain (thus allowing unlimited copying).

Recording companies et al simply don't like it because they'd have to overhaul their entire business, and would likely simply be realized as useless by the artists themselves.

"That is why it is different then other property. They want indeffinate copyright?"

Tax them on the value of the work...

See the first comment at this link:

http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/index.php?id=4 3#comment

Let me know if you like it and if you can see ways to improve it if you would be so kind.

all the best,

drew
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/262954

"The difference is that the creation of an artistic work is a more long-term investment: you pick up garbage, you get paid for it, but if you create an artistic work there is no money to be seen until you have invested a huge amount in producing a complete work"

This is not some natural law you know. You can actually think outside the box and get paid before you create an artistic work. Trust me on this one.

Oh, and I invite everyone's comments on the first comment at this link:

http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/index.php?id=4 3#comment

all the best,

drew

"The entire value of the book is wrapped up in its IP, because copies have a trivial cost (compare to 200 years ago, when printing books had a significant cost)."

Well, I am putting my time where my mouth is and experimenting with other possibilities:

http://www.ourmedia.org/node/85937
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/262954
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/187924

"I'd be really ecstatic if there were stricter controls even than we have now--as long as the length of copyright was reduced drastically and keys were escrowed with the government and released at the end of the copyright term."

Well, I would say that you are not thinking straight or that the punishments in your country are no where near as bad as they are in mine. How does 4 or 5 years in a reputedly very nasty jail for each non-genuine CD or DVD in your posession sound? (By that I mean even ones that you may have purchesed in good faith and been ripped off in the purchase because you were sold a bogus disk.)

I am fine with the drastically reduced terms though.

Would you care to comment on the first comment at this link:

http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/index.php?id=4 3#comment

I am also experimenting with music:

http://musicians.opensrc.org/DrewRoberts

and am thinking about messing somehow with a movie next year...

all the best,

drew

However difficult you perceive making money without copyright (or with the GPL's nullification of it), the fact remains: it is not the OBJECTIVE of the GPL to prevent people selling their software.

As for making it easier to make money from selling software (without trying to sell copies of it), I am working on it...

Digital Productions

When your car wears out, you don't complain that you should have had the right to a backup copy, you go out an buy a new car. Why is music (or movies, or even books for that matter) any different?

Top marks!

You can count yourself as one of the few on this planet who grok this issue.

I'm working on a mechanism to facilitate the process you mention in your 'step 3', of funding the artist for their art, rather than paying the retailer for a mere copy: The Contingency Market.

I also wrote an article a while ago about using this mechanism for games development: The Bedroom Coder's Business Model.