Pirate Party Leader: Copyright Laws Ridiculous

smitty777 writes "Rick Falkvinge, better known as the leader for Sweden's Pirate Party, recommends doing away with copyright laws since no one is following them anyway. FTA: '...he uses examples from the buttonmakers guild in 1600s France to justify eliminating the five major parts of copyright law today. The first two are cover duplication and public performance, and piracy today has ruined those. The next two cover rights of the creator to get credit and prevent other performances, satires, remixes, etc they don't like. Falkvinge says giving credit is important, but not worthy of a law. Finally, "neighboring rights" are used by the music industry to block duplication, which Falkvinge rejects.'"

Comments

He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[icebike]

Copyright laws are to preserve the right of copying the work for the copyright holder. Period.
Giving credit doesn't even enter into it. Satire and remixes don't matter and are already protected anyway.

That the laws have failed miserably to preserve the author/rightsholder's Right to copy and profit from their work is
sad but true in this digital age.

Still, it seems a tad self serving for those that smashed into storefronts to suggest repealing laws against looting on
the grounds that everyone is doing it. Is a TV set or Microwave oven that much different than a song or a book?
The basic premise that a work in digital form can be replicated without depleting the inventory of the author is simply mistaking the
the form for the function. The form may be bits and bytes. The function is someone's work product. Unless he proposes putting
all authors and on the public teat, I am at a loss to see how anyone can keep writing books any more than I can see why anyone
would stock more microwave's in a store from which anyone take anything they wanted.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[CrystalFalcon]

The purposes of the copyright monpoly vary between legislations, so there is not "one" purpose.

In the United States, it is "to promote the progress and the useful arts", nothing more, nothing less. That is a direct quote from the constitution.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[DCTech]

Well, record labels do provide many services to artists, starting from financing them when they're starting up, their professional help, their experience and their marketing channels. This isn't exactly free either. Here is a list of costs for advertising related stuff:

Optional mailing labor for CD $1.00 each
Optional mailing labor for CD+vinyl $1.50 each
Optional BDS tracking $1000
Optional Mediabase tracking $1000
Optional R&R Indicator tracking $1000
Optional Quarterbacking $100 00

College Radio (8 weeks)
Jazz, Blues, Folk, Americana, Piano (up to 100 stations) .$ 2500
CMJ charting for URBAN, metal, electronic, jazz, world, AAA, (250 stations), or non-
charting for alternative .$ 2500
CMJ Top200 Charting (up to 500 stns; incl extra phones) $ 4000
CMJ Top200 Charting (up to 700 stns; incl extra phones
and CMJ core stations) .$ 6000
Regional (non charting, any genre) (50 stations) .$ 2000

Commercial Specialty Mixshow (8 weeks)
National Mixshow (BDS Level - 100 stations) $15,000
Mixshow (up to 70 stations, college & commercial) $ 6000
Dance Mixshow Charting (100 stations) $ 4000
Regional (non-charting) (10 stations) $ 6000

Commercial Regular Rotation for AC, Pop, R&B (8 weeks)
75 stations (small markets) $ 4000
150 stations (small markets) .$ 7000
R&R indicator stage 1 (small markets - 10 stations) $15000
R&R indicator stage 2 (medium & small markets - 25 stations).$30000
BDS Promotion (7-10 stations) $15000
FMQB charting (100+ stations, medium and small) $20000
R&R CHR/Pop Indicator (medium and small markets - 50 stations) $40000
Regional (non-charting) (10-15 stations) $8000
FMQB AC tracking (optional) $ 400/mo
High-Level AC Promotion (includes field staff) .$20000
(additional)
High-Level Pop/Urban Promotion (includes field staff) $40000
(additional)
High-Level station giveaways or commercials (unrated mkt) $ 200/station
High-Level station giveaways or commercials (small mkt) $ 500/station
High-Level station giveaways or commercials (medium mkt) .$ 1500/station

Commercial Regular Rotation for Rock, Alt, Urban (8 weeks)
R&R indicator stage 1 (small markets - 10 stations) .$ 15000
R&R indicator stage 2 (medium & small markets - 25 stations) $ 30000
Regional (non-charting) (10-15 stations) $8000
BDS Promotion (7-10 stations) $15000
High-Level Promotion Urban (includes field staff) $40000
(additional)
High-Level station giveaways or commercials (unrated mkt) $ 200/station
High-Level station giveaways or commercials (small mkt) $ 500/station
High-Level station giveaways or commercials (medium mkt) .$ 1500/station

Commercial Regular Rotation for AAA or Smooth Jazz (8 weeks)
50 station special (medium and small) $ 8,000
FMQB / R&R charting (75 stations, all sizes) .$20,000
Regional (non-charting) (20 stations) $ 2500
FMQB AAA tracking (optional) .$ 200/mo
High-Level Promotion (includes field staff) $10000
(additional)

Commercial Regular Rotation for Country (8 weeks)
Small market non-charting (50 small stations)

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[noh8rz2]

In socialist Sweden, copyright just wrote a book saying YOU are irrelevant!

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

People don't make art just because they need a quick buck.

Any artist of any form worth their salt is doing it because they geinuinely like the artform, and would do so pay or no pay.

This coming from a musician who uploads his music for free download on the internet.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

If i wasn't AC id mod you up, CRUX OF THE MATTER

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[drsmithy]

Giving credit doesn't even enter into it.

Proper attribution is a part of the moral rights due to an author (and is the only unquestionably valid and supportable aspect of Copyright, IMHO).

Is a TV set or Microwave oven that much different than a song or a book?

Yes.

Unless he proposes putting all authors and on the public teat, I am at a loss to see how anyone can keep writing books any more than I can see why anyone would stock more microwave's in a store from which anyone take anything they wanted.

Your implication is that without public funding or Copyright, creative works would no longer be produced. History demonstrates how ridiculous this is.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, record labels do provide many services to artists

That's a hell of a way to spin it. Who do you think ultimately pays for the advertising, the studio time, the costs of live shows, etc.?

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Xanny]

But having art also function as a profession that feeds you gets a lot more young artists into it. Alternatively, they would either go into STEM, one of the service fields, the military, or find no purpose in life. Most of the artistic people I know have no scientific inclination, and now this is my opinion, but I feel (personally) that if you are not making something useful (and art is useful, from a cultural perspective) you have diminished purpose.

So when the artist could have made a minimum wage living off selling paintings, if you can duplicate without reciprocation the works of art and he cant survive off just art anymore, he has to take on a menial job that detracts from an otherwise gifted individual.

I don't like copyright, but until you don't need to work to eat and sleep in a bed in your own home, you can't expect artists to work, and more importantly attract budding artists to pursue their talents, to take up the profession. We need to maintain a way for artists who make duplicate digital media to survive off what they make while acknowledging the cost of reproduction is less than a cent on most of this media and not distributing it for free is doing the opposite of what the constitution defines progress as.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[icebike]

Your implication is that without public funding or Copyright, creative works would no longer be produced. History demonstrates how ridiculous this is.

You need a history lesson.

Most of our great works were produced under a system of patronage or direct performance before there existed means of coping.
Even Shakespeare worked for money.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Relic of the Future]

(Nitpicky edit)

"To promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts..."

(/Nitpicky edit)

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Relic of the Future]

Damnit, my strike tags on your "the" got edited out! Now I'M going to get nit-picked.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[DCTech]

Well, record labels do provide many services to artists

That's a hell of a way to spin it. Who do you think ultimately pays for the advertising, the studio time, the costs of live shows, etc.?

The customer, like in every business? Of course, record labels also take risk of the band not succeeding and them making a loss.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Professr3]

Not much of a risk, if you ask me. They don't really accept anyone unless they're absolutely sure they have a >50% chance they'll make money off 'em.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[CrystalFalcon]

Right you are, sir.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Even Shakespeare worked for money.

And his works ONLY survived because they were "pirated".

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[blueg3]

Means of coping? Do you mean means of copying?

There have always been means of copying. Long before Shakespeare's time, the primary enterprise of monks was the duplication of written works. It's just that back in the day, copying was less efficient and less accurate. (You could watch Hamlet and copy it, but you would only get an exact copy of the text if you happened to secure a written copy of it.)

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Pepebuho]

You are right, at least as the US is involved, Copyright laws have nothing to do with giving credit. (That is the realm of trademark). Nevertheless, the introduction by Europe, specially the french, of so called "moral rights", have introduced "giving credit" into the equation.
Therefore Falkvinge is right when you look at the modern laws of copyright as written in Europe.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Pepebuho]

Actually, this comes off the royalties paid to Artists. No wonder many of them do not see a cent of royalties because they are still "in the red".
For the record company it is easy to get a better price than what you see here, but the artist will not see it, the record company lives off the arbitrage.

In the end, many successful modern artist go direct to the Internet and bypass this sinkhole.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[cheater512]

So....our civil rights are being forfeited so the music and movie industries to subsidise musicians/movies?

What was the ratio between cost and profit on Avatar again? Somehow I don't think cost comes in to it - they are rolling in it.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

This is one thing that confuses me: at what point did casual entertainment become a useful art?

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[drsmithy]

Most of our great works were produced under a system of patronage or direct performance before there existed means of coping.

These sorts of "great works" or "direct performances" remain uncopyable today. You can bring up a picture of the Sistine Chapel on a great big TV if you want, but it pales to insignificance when compared with standing inside it.

Even Shakespeare worked for money.

Non-sequitur. I never suggested anyone should work for free.

The simple fact is vast quantities of creative works were produced before Copyright existed, and increasing quantities have been (and continue to be) created since without any thought given to Copyright. The implication that Copyright is an essential part of creative works doesn't stand up to even a cursory examination.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[stanlyb]

NO, no and, let me say it again: NO.
Copyright is COMPROMISE between the interest of the society, and the individual. It was recognized that one needs to take credit for his innovation, but as every "innovator" is part of the society, and his/her invention is not PURE invention as he/she used the fruits of the same society (did even Steve Jobs made his iPhone out of thin air? From scratch? From the required math/physics/chemistry/etc. laws and rules? DID HE?), so it is STUPID to say the the before mentioned "inventor" is true "inventor" and should take all the credit for his work. Clear enough?

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

All completely unnecessary. Look at the punk scene for a practical demonstration of a modern distribution network. Dozens of small labels each supporting a handful of bands feed into a few larger distros focused on a few similar subgenres (Robotic Empire, Plan-It-X, etc.). More popular albums hit shops like Interpunk or All That's Heavy, and the biggest sellers are available on mainstream shops like Amazon or CDUniverse.

If advertising money is all the big labels bring to the table, then they can be readily eliminated. Music will continue to be made and distributed to fans without them. Add in the fact that they demand ownership of the music in return for that money and they are doing more harm than good.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Belial6]

It seems a tad self severing for the storefront owner who smashed in the manufacturers and window and slapped on their own label before putting it in their windows, to complain about looting on the grounds that when they do it it doesn't count.

Using your analogy, the people the current media barons are breaking into our homes and stealing our great grandmother's wedding rings. They are then swapping the diamonds between the bands, and declaring it their own.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[irtza]

before there existed means of coping.

Xanax is a relatively new invention. Good thing its available as a generic

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[chrismcb]

People don't make art just because they need a quick buck.

No, but a lot of people do. And those that can get paid to make art, generally create better art than those who do it as a hobby.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[icongorilla]

Still, it seems a tad self serving for those that smashed into storefronts to suggest repealing laws against looting on the grounds that everyone is doing it. Is a TV set or Microwave oven that much different than a song or a book? The basic premise that a work in digital form can be replicated without depleting the inventory of the author is simply mistaking the the form for the function. The form may be bits and bytes. The function is someone's work product. Unless he proposes putting all authors and on the public teat, I am at a loss to see how anyone can keep writing books any more than I can see why anyone would stock more microwave's in a store from which anyone take anything they wanted.

If you are going to make it illegal to deprive someone of a sale, but not necessarily of physical item, you are entering muddy waters, buddy. You as might as well hold Walmart legally responsible for all the small businesses they put out of business by "depriving them of sales." Please, do not make physical comparisons if it isn't appropriate. But Walmart didn't steal any physical items from them, now did they?

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[sjames]

Actually, copyright laws GRANT, not preserve, the exclusive right of copying the work to the copyright holder. More correctly, the copyright laws curtail the rights of everyone but the copyright holder to make copies for a limited time.

This is a considerably different from laws against theft which simply prescribe legal penalties for violating the rights of property that exist independently of those laws.

That is, copyright legislates against a right for a limited time as part of a bargain to cause more works to exist. Property laws support rights that exist independently of the laws.

Given that, the looters are doing a very different thing than the copiers.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet in many ways it does not. It has been used to line the pockets of corporation.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[hitmark]

Copyright law has been largely unified via the Bern convention (USA signed on in the 1980s) and later WIPO.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[CrystalFalcon]

"Useful Arts" actually refers to patentable handicraft; the consitution's motivation for the patent monopolies. This is the same word as you see in "artisan".

"Progress of Science" refers to knowledge subject to the copyright monopolies.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Belial6]

And yet Shakespeare did not do it via public funding or copyright. So, it would seem the if drsmithy needs a history lesson, it isn't because he is confused about copyright.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[hitmark]

"dude, you're a barista" comes to mind...

there are more part time artists than there ever will be full time ones.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[sjames]

That's the one thing remaining that the labels actually do, they front the band money much like an angel investor would for a company, but unlike the angel, they demand 100% ownership.

The rest of it isn't actually things the label contributes since 100% of it is charged against the band's paltry royalties. That's how a band can have an album go double platinum and never get a check from the label.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[sjames]

And patronage and admissions for a performance are not copyright and are not public funding. So what was wrong with GP's comment?

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Ethanol-fueled]

I doubt it. Consider the last few Metallica and Red Hot Chili Pepper albums. They get paid bigger bucks than ever and they aren't even trying.

The best, most unique art I've seen was painted by community college students with good grades and recognition in the gallery being their only motivation.

Being paid for the work only encourages pandering to the preferred styles of those who have enough money to pay $100 or more for a small painting. Most digital graphic designers are almost always slaves to their customers' requirements.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, also a musician who releases his works for free. If people want to hear what I've made, I am happy.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called culture. Not everyone is a Picasso. Wait till they die tragically then their part-time art will suddenly be worth something to people like you.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Dahamma]

The simple fact is vast quantities of creative works were produced before Copyright existed, and increasing quantities have been (and continue to be) created since without any thought given to Copyright. The implication that Copyright is an essential part of creative works doesn't stand up to even a cursory examination.

The big difference is that historically the larger the effort and cost of the work, the larger the effort and cost to copy it. No one is going to pay to copy the Sistine Chapel. And to copy a painting required a skilled artist and almost as much effort as making the original. Even a book would have to be copied by hand with a fountain pen or typeset by hand with a primitive printing press.

Today, whether it's a book or song written by one person or a $200M movie, they are trivially easy and cheap to copy, and if the creators are not given at least some window of time before copying it were freely allowed, there is no way many of these works (especially movies) would make back the initial expense. Then again, that limitation could probably be more like 2-3 years (at which point most movies have made 95%+ of what they will ever make) instead of 120!

The original purpose of Copyright law was very fair - to allow someone to cover their production expenses and make a living before becoming part of the public domain. Now it's been perverted to allow giant media corporations a near permanent dynastic protection to anything they do...

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Stormthirst]

Depends on your definition of useful art I guess. If you find it useful for the art to drag you to a place of fantasy for 45 minutes (assuming you can block out the adverts every 5 minutes), then it's useful. If you lack the imagination that allows you to immerse yourself in someone else's story, then I guess it isn't useful - and you'd be a very boring person.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[viperidaenz]

And they only loan the artists a bunch of money and won't give them a cent until it is paid back. link

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Stormthirst]

This is why all the 'bands' these days sound the same. The labels are so risk averse, they are there to only make money - and that means using tried and tested methods/sounds

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't even counting Cox for the Middle Peninsula and New Kent

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

More importantly: it's a well know fact today that their exists certain 'recipes' to make a successful work of art if what you are aiming for is money.
Certain music rhythms, certain themes for the lyrics, or certain movie plots are guaranteed to be popular and make plenty of sales. This is very different from 50+ years ago when most music, movies, literature and other arts were trying to be artistic, entertaining, intellectual and educational. Art improved society by getting people to think and was also a testimony of the culture of the time.

So do we want tomorrow's culture to be made of 'art' that is based on a formula that brings in monetary profit, or do we want art that reflects our culture and intellectually elevates us?

Personally, I think if revoking copyright laws would remove the incentive to produce art from some artists, as the MPAA and others say, then it's a good riddance. I for one do not want your art if it was made with the sole aim of bringing you money. On the other hand, if you write a song, novel or money because you're trying to actually be artistic and express yourself, then I'm interested*.

*And note that I understand artists need to be able to live off their art. But let's face it, copyright law is not really about helping artists make a living, it's all about helping them be millionaires. I do not believe that if piracy were legal, good artists would make so much less money than they do now that they'd go broke. Instead, I think real artists would still have a public who supports them, and the "I just want money" media-makers would find another job because making media wouldn't make you richer than the average person.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, that's not what the law says in any country.

Copyright is s matter of LAW, not your philosophical plaything.

Take your soap box with you and just go away.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[MichaelKristopeit491]

first post = (Score:1, Redundant)

slashdot = stagnated

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[zenasprime]

You are wrongly assuming that selling copies is the only way by which one can make a living off of their artistic creativity.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[frank_adrian314159]

You mean many modern artists who have used previous record company contracts to build a substantial nation-/worldwide fan base. Although there are a few counterexamples (the exceptions that prove the rule), they are fairly few in number.

Does this mean that artists get screwed? Yes and no. The artists may not make a lot (if any) money, but their expenses can be covered and it's a good opportunity, due to the nationwide promotion and touring, even if the recording doesn't pan out. If you are in the right place at the right time with the right amount of business savvy and right mindset, you can parlay this promotion into a successful music career, even if you don't make a lot of money on the record company deal itself.

Even better, the record company may drop you after the first couple albums, freeing you with your (now) national contacts to make decent money afterward (at least more money faster than if you played struggling regional artist for years).

The main issue is to go into the process with your eyes wide open - they will try to screw you. But you can screw back and take any advantages you get. Chances are you won't make money on the record contract, but you can use the contacts and fan base gained in the process to promote your career long afterward and, if you're smart enough, "fail successfully".

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

College Radio (8 weeks)
Jazz, Blues, Folk, Americana, Piano (up to 100 stations) .$ 2500
and CMJ core stations) .$ 6000
Regional (non charting, any genre) (50 stations) .$ 2000

Commercial Specialty Mixshow (8 weeks)
National Mixshow (BDS Level - 100 stations) $15,000
Mixshow (up to 70 stations, college & commercial) $ 6000
Dance Mixshow Charting (100 stations) $ 4000
Regional (non-charting) (10 stations) $ 6000

Commercial Regular Rotation for AC, Pop, R&B (8 weeks)
75 stations (small markets) $ 4000
150 stations (small markets) .$ 7000
R&R indicator stage 1 (small markets - 10 stations) $15000
R&R indicator stage 2 (medium & small markets - 25 stations).$30000
BDS Promotion (7-10 stations) $15000
FMQB charting (100+ stations, medium and small) $20000
R&R CHR/Pop Indicator (medium and small markets - 50 stations) $40000
Regional (non-charting) (10-15 stations) $8000
Commercial Regular Rotation for AAA or Smooth Jazz (8 weeks)
50 station special (medium and small) $ 8,000
FMQB / R&R charting (75 stations, all sizes) .$20,000
Regional (non-charting) (20 stations) $ 2500

Commercial Regular Rotation for Country (8 weeks)
Small market non-charting (50 small stations) $ 2500

Gospel or Christian Regular Rotation (8 weeks)
100 stations (all sizes, charting) .$ 4000
200 stations (all sizes, charting $ 6000
Regional (non-charting) (20 stations) $ 2500

(end)

Okay, I'm officially confused -- is this payola?

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[dbet]

No one's forcing them to do any of those things. I think we need to get past the idea that if you invest money that you deserve a profit, and any laws that protect that profit are good ones.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

That's awesome. But the current copyright system doesn't prevent you from doing what you want to do, and people who do want to make money off their work should be allowed to.

Just because you as an artist don't want to make money off your art, it doesn't mean everyone else should be forced into that as well.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[drsmithy]

Today, whether it's a book or song written by one person or a $200M movie, they are trivially easy and cheap to copy, and if the creators are not given at least some window of time before copying it were freely allowed, there is no way many of these works (especially movies) would make back the initial expense. Then again, that limitation could probably be more like 2-3 years (at which point most movies have made 95%+ of what they will ever make) instead of 120!

I doubt there are many movies that haven't - absent Hollywood Accounting - made a tidy profit before the end of their box office run, and even fewer that couldn't be made to by reducing the salaries of a handful of leading actors, producers, etc. That's not even accounting for merchandising and further (though obviously much reduced, relatively speaking) DVD/BR/etc sales.

Huge amounts of money are made by live music performances, not only from the performance itself but also from merchandising and sundries. Certainly enough to cover the studio time for a CD recording. Again, that's not account for merchandising and recording sales.

The only really big "problem" from the perspective of economic viability in the absence of Copyright is ebooks, and the best solution there IMHO is DRM.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[rgbrenner]

Any accountant of any form worth their salt is doing it because they geinuinely like the artform, and would do so pay or no pay.
Any software developer of any form worth their salt is doing it because they geinuinely like the artform, and would do so pay or no pay.
Any website designer of any form worth their salt is doing it because they geinuinely like the artform, and would do so pay or no pay.
Any scientist of any form worth their salt is doing it because they geinuinely like the artform, and would do so pay or no pay.

I'll sign up with your "let's make all copywritten works free" when you agree to do your own job for free too.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Counting Cox is what you do to help you fall asleep every night.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[ldobehardcore]

People aren't naturally compelled to put together microwaves, typically. While artists will always make art, whether copyright exists or not. Copyright requires art, not vice-versa. If the art is good, then there will always be demand, and there will always be natural scarcity of some kind that can be used by artists. Copyright is inhibiting culture today more than promoting it. Why should we keep laws that have become so outdated and irrelevant

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[shentino]

And the fact that musicians are artists first and businessmen second is why the record labels get away with screwing them.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[CrystalFalcon]

Actually, the copyright monopoly is a balance between the public's interest in availability of culture, and the SAME public's interest in having new culture created.

Individuals and creators and the copyright industry are not stakeholders in that balance, but beneficiaries of the monopoly (just like Blackwater Security or whatever their name is this week is a beneficiary of United States foreign policy, without that meaning that they get a seat at the drafting table).

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[icebike]

there will always be natural scarcity of some kind that can be used by artists

No. That is precisely the point. There won't be a scarcity. The moment the art is sold, shown, exhibited, in the world you propose it could instantly be copied printed replicated by anyone who happens to get near it with a camer. This could happen before the artist makes a single thin dime off of it.

Yes you will still have those that do it for the love of the doing. But far fewer. Even artists have to put bread on the table.

Let me know when you are willing to work for free, but in the mean time the artists knowledge and skill is his only stock in trade. Don't take that from him.
You pay the farmer for the eggs, and seem to have no problem with that. Why should the composer get less?

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[similar_name]

Copyright laws are to preserve the right of copying the work for the copyright holder. Period.

Laws balance the rights of individuals to the rights of societies. You can't solely argue for the rights of the individual (in many cases, not even the actual author) without weighing the pros and cons to society. Otherwise, laws are meaningless and will ultimately fail. Current copyright law does not take into consideration the benefit of public domain and thus has become meaningless and will ultimately fail.

I'm not saying we should abolish copyright but extending it beyond the life span of most people doesn't even give benefits to the author and sacrifices a great deal to the public. Walt Disney is dead, opening Fantasia to the public domain would do more to encourage what it was originally intended to be than Disney owning it ever will.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Thing 1]

I don't like copyright, but until you don't need to work to eat and sleep in a bed in your own home, you can't expect artists to work, and more importantly attract budding artists to pursue their talents, to take up the profession. We need to maintain a way for artists who make duplicate digital media to survive off what they make while acknowledging the cost of reproduction is less than a cent on most of this media and not distributing it for free is doing the opposite of what the constitution defines progress as.

Sounds like you've identified the systemic issue to be one with how the system itself is set up. Which is different from blaming any of the actors in the current system for their actions.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Shakespeare had patronage from the monarchy how is that not public funding?

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[icebike]

Laws balance the rights of individuals to the rights of societies. You can't solely argue for the rights of the individual

I don't disagree with anything you've said, and implicit in every definition of copyright is a time period, after which everything becomes public domain.
That part is so obvious I didn't thing it necessary to state it.

In fact I could make a case that Copyright should be knocked back to that it was originally, or maybe just to 10 years.
After all, if you can't sell enough in ten years to feed your family while you work on the next creation, you should probably take
up farming instead.

But that is not what the Pirate Party is proposing. They are proposing total abolition of copyright, (and by logical extension, patents too).

They are essentially saying that If I get a peek at your great manuscript, I can rush it out before you even get a chance to sell the leather
bound first editions. When you do soldier on and print a few copies for friends, I can scan that
and under cut your price, because there would be no legal protection at all.

Writing, composing, and recording become spare time projects for steel workers, farmers, and truck drivers, because without a source of income
the people who create can't make a living, unlike the performers.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Pentium100]

Is a TV set or Microwave oven that much different than a song or a book?

Not at all, we just currently do not have the technology to be able to (easily) copy them, but I imagine if the replicator (as seen in Star Trek) is ever invented and can produce an item cheaper than buying it in the store, people will be downloading TVs and microwave ovens, as well as other items.

As for digital stuff - well, people still buy paper books because they want paper books (not a file), people still buy CDs and records with music, or BDs with movies. Also, even though the copyright laws do not work, people still buy digital downloads and software because they want to pay the creator. When I buy a game I do it because I want to support the creator (and the price is right), not because I am afraid to pirate it. Look at the humble indie bundle - you can pay as little (or as much) as you want and people still pay $5 on average. It would be interesting if a big company tried this with a good AAA game.

We need to ditch the "game == TV set" idea, because software (music/etc) is not like a physical product (even if you do not take the easiness of copying into account), as the authors themselves think so and the laws reflect it:
1. There is a huge used physical item (car/TV/etc) and a lot of people making money from the sales of used items (the people selling them and sites like ebay) and everything is OK, but game developers want to be paid each time a used game is sold? Why? Nobody paid Matsushita when I bought my used Technics tape deck.
2. You own the physical item and can do anything you want with it (take apart, modify, even copy if you are able to), but you do not own a game (or software) and can only do what the author allowed you to. When I modified the tape deck in my car to add a "line-in" option (so I can connect my MD recorder), I did not have to ask Clarion for permission.
3. Patents (that would prevent me from legally selling a copied physical item, but not copying for my own use or modifying) expire in 15-20 years, while copyrights (that prevent me from copying and modifying a game/song/etc) last for 120 or more years.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[sd4f]

I honestly think this is what big content are fearful of, people distributing their work for free, at the moment free movie productions don't have a chance of competing with big block busters, but music is definitely moving in the direction of a real diverse mixture and a lot of the younger people, myself included, particularly when i was in high school not too long ago, the pop industry just couldn't cater to our tastes (be they what they may), it was largely underground or non mainstream music, and i've noticed now, the huge influence it has had on the pop industry, with all currently released music taking a lot of stylistic ques and motifs from underground electronic music of the 90's and 00's. I think that the record companies are now playing catch up rather than moving their weight around like the once did and told people more or less what to like by mass marketing it.

I think it's a testament to the times that you get attempts at laws to prevent the possibility of someone else being creative, since from what i read about SOPA, big content will be able to take down stuff which isn't even theirs, and i'm pretty sure, just like before, legitimately free things will be thrown in amongst the blatant piracy, but nevertheless, i for one am convinced that big content are trying to run the policies in such a way that guarantees their market more than their content.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Drew_9999]

People don't make art just because they need a quick buck.

Any artist of any form worth their salt is doing it because they geinuinely like the artform, and would do so pay or no pay.

This coming from a musician who uploads his music for free download on the internet.

Whoah, buddy, you don't get to speak for all artists. I love doing art and I'd do it anyway, but if I'm going to spend 40+ hours a week doing it, I need to get paid. Feel free to make however much art you want and give it away, but just because that works for you doesn't mean that it works for everyone, or that it's the best way for art to be made.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[sjames]

Logic fail. Many others did NOT have patronage from the monarch and none had copyright, yet the works were produced. To properly refute GP, you would have to show that no art was produced outside of public funding and copyright protection. One example that did have such patronage (however well respected) doesn't even approach the burden of proof.

Beyond that, the monarch didn't even pretend to be a representative of the people, and so the patronage was as much personal as anything else.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[wierd_w]

Strange.. it has always been my take that this is waht usually deters budding artists, and it isn't the issue of being paid.

First: many kids in school start learning to draw all on their own. They cover the insides of their binders and notebooks in cute, sometimes inventive gaphiti. Teachers get angry with them for "wasting their time", when in reality the teachers want them to do homework rather than draw.

This denouncement of the activity sends a destructive message that these activities are not worthwhile, at a particularly important point in neural development. Specifically, the creation of neurons for skills honed later in life happens during childhood, with aggressive pruning happening in teenage to young adult years. "Motor memory" and other intrinsic manipulation abilities develop at this time. By distracting from artistic development and interest in childhood, we literally program people to avoid becoming artists, and sabotage the ones that still persist, despite this message and even being penalised for their persistence.

Second: people believe nobody will want their art. Since art supplies are expensive, lessons to "properly" use those supplies are expensive, and the prospect of producing crap that they can't even give away, people avoid dabbling with artwork.

Third: if they produce art, how do they share it? (Art is impotent unless shared with others.) Recent trends with things like deviant art and other internet art communities have made this easier, but so far only a handful of artforms are able to be shared this way. For example, sculpture is particularly hard to share online, unless created in a purely digital form.

So, if you want people to make art, the better way to incentivize them is to stop telling kids that they need to stop seeking artistic output, show people that even horrible dross has aesthetic followings, and to help artists find those followings.

Notice that nowhere was any money involved.

The best thing that money does, is provide a tangible measure of demand for a genre of artwork. That's all.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

RIAA: "Raping Ingenuous Artists Anally."

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[dead_cthulhu]

An "angel" offering fame and fortune but demanding complete ownership of the artist sounds more like a deal with the devil to me.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[nomadic]

This guy wants to make money from selling movies. He can't make the movies himself. So he wants the right to sell other people's movies without compensating them for their work. Seems pretty straightforward.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[pdabbadabba]

This is quite a leap. It presupposes that artistic (and other) works enter the world ready and able to be copied, while physical things come into the world with property rights already attached. This is not at all obvious to me. Then again, I don't believe that property rights are natural rights -- I think they are created by law to achieve policy goals (albiet very important ones, for the most part, and goals that history has shown to be very difficult to achieve through any other means). But even if I believed that they were natural rights, by way of, say, the labor theory of property, I think a good case could be made that copyright should be a natural right or, if you prefer, just a type of property right. Indeed, this is apparently an influential view, among copyright scholars.(In short, if one has a right to exclude others from the fruits of one's own labor, then you should be able to exclude others from enjoyment of your creative works just as you can exclude them from taking your stuff.

Of course, you may have an argument to the contrary. I'd like to hear it. I might even agree. But hopefully we can at least agree that a lot of your claims are a little hasty, and that reasonable people might disagree with them.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Xeno man]

I can see that your working on several assumptions that are just not true. The first is that theft is the same as copyright infringement. Different laws, different actions, different consequences. If I steal a tv, I have taken the materials from you. In order for you to sell that tv you need to buy more materials to make that tv and pay someone to assemble that tv and maybe ship it to your location to replace that tv. All of those things can easily be measured in how it directly harmed you financially. This has nothing to do with how much you can have made selling that tv. Which bring us to copying media. If I copy a song, you haven't lost a thing. You have to expend zero effort to re cope losses because nothing was lost. All of these losses big business whines about are potential sales. Potentially someone could have bought this but now they defiantly won't because that have a copy.

Next you think that everyone is wrong because laws must be followed. Laws are just a set of rules that determine how people want to live decided by the people. If the vast majority act in contrary to the law, then it is the law that is wrong, not the people. Downloading and sharing is something that happens all the time, every day by common every day people. Your riot example is no where near the same as what happens online every day. A Riot is a single event usually occurring in a single night by a small group.

The final assumption is that an author should be paid or there won't be anymore books. Frankly, if they can't make money writing with sharing going on, then they shouldn't write. Maybe there will be a few less books but that will only increase demand for good books and if the writing is good, people will always pay for good work.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[physicsdot]

And you wrongly are implying that therefore piracy of material is acceptable. If an artist, for whatever reason, decides to make money from selling copies of their work - then you, if you enjoy that work, have an obligation to help support them. That is the social contract you enter into when you gain the benefits of someone else's time.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Belial6]

Sounds like Disney.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

The big difference is that historically the larger the effort and cost of the work, the larger the effort and cost to copy it. No one is going to pay to copy the Sistine Chapel.

Today, whether it's a book or song written by one person or a $200M movie, they are trivially easy and cheap to copy,
 
 

Nobody I know of is creating a movie theater chain and reproducing that $200 movie chain and selling pirated movie tickets. Most people I know, already have Netflix and don't want to wait the extra few days for the DVD to come out.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[sjames]

Artistic works DO for the most part enter the world ready to be copied. Stories have always been told and retold. Artists have always copied others. If you tell me a story and I tell someone else, you don't suddenly become unable to tell it.

Physical objects have never had that characteristic, no matter how hard we wish. If I take an object from you, you don't have it any more.

That fundamental difference has always been there and that's why they have always been treated distinctly. It's why it's two entirely seperate areas of law. Even now with copyright law running amok, nobody has yet suggested that it might be coonsidered a perpetual right like property (where it can pass down generations forever). Any number of writers have shown that society cannot even function long if intellectual property is allowed to be treated as physical property.

Consider in our own culture to this day, oral story telling (everything from personal anecdotes to urban legends) still has no copyright. There is no legal right and few would grant you a moral right to the story you tell at dinner about the time your friend did X. Everyone laughs, and perhaps one or more later tell the story of when a friend of a friend did X with or without embellishments. Why does it suddenly gain some special privilege just because you scribble it down on a cocktail napkin?

If you look at the pre-socialized behavior of children or at various pre-civilized cultures throughout history, their behavior matches what I've said. They quickly develop a recognition of individual physical property rights, but rarely intellectual property rights other than a right of attribution (credit).

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[artor3]

Your civil rights? Really, you have a civil right to enjoy someone else's works without paying them?

Methinks your diluting the term a bit...

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[bloodhawk]

The reality of this world is giving stuff away for free doesn't pay the gas bill or put food on the table. People that want to spend there lives devoted to their art need to pay the bills, if there art isn't paying the bills then they must do something else to pay the bills and hence there will be less art. Not sure whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, but the reality is you can't eat good will.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll much?

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Grishnakh]

Well, the Devil is supposed to be a fallen angel...

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Grishnakh]

I'm not sure Avatar is a very good example: I thought I read that it was largely financed by James Cameron himself, so it probably would never have been made if it weren't for him ponying up his own money, and he instead had tried to rely on getting some studio to finance it entirely.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[EuclideanSilence]

Suppose a person had memorized a book or a passage from it, or learned to play a song on their own instrument. Copyright can prevent a person from being free to speak or otherwise offer their own knowledge to a willing listener. There's no more important right a person can have than that.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Rennt]

We all had that right till some asshole came along and invented Intellectual Property. There isn't exactly a natural right to be paid for you work either you know, especially for a REPRODUCTION of your work. We all just play a legal fiction in the name of progress.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Shakespeare's plays were pirated a decade or more before he ever saw "approved" copies in print. He probably would have loved to have gotten paid for the copies other people were selling. The earliest copies we have are pirated copies sometimes reproduced from somebody trying to remember the lines. Maybe we would have better copies if he'd had a way to make some cash off of producing them. Then again, who's ever gonna read these plays?

I'm writing a book, it's taking me three years (I'm not a fast writer). Should I hope to get any of that time paid for? Well, thinking I might get paid sure is a little bit encouraging. The argument that artists would do it anyway is odd. Like other people who honestly like what they do shouldn't have a way to get fairly paid? I'm sure some scientists, academics, entrepreneurs, doctors, hell, even lawyers actually get some pleasure and satisfaction out of what they do. But only artists are supposed to do it for free? Hmm.

Fairness would then dictate that artists get all those other services for free. Yea! Artists get free health-care! Then you're talking.

If we have ideas about reform that helps the goals of encouraging creativity, not just making it easy to justify not paying people for work they do, I think most people can get behind that. The fact that new technology makes it easier to do what might be considered stealing, does not suddenly make it harmless. We need to look at the effects of what we do, and change the laws (by our actions) to match what we think is just and applicable for creative folks, appreciative audiences, corporate-gods and old dead playwrights.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Endo13]

But then, that gets right at the heart at the problem. There's way too much supply and not enough demand. Lots of people are expecting to spend 40+ hours a week "making art" and get paid a sufficient wage to live on it.

See the thing is, your art is only worth what some generous (that's right) individual is willing to pay for it. No one needs your particular works. Whatever it is, someone else is almost certainly creating very similar works from their own creativity for a much lower price, and likely for free (or at least for only the cost of materials). That same individual is holding another job to pay the bills, and creating art because it's his/her passion. That is, has always been, and will always be the case. It's only in very recent history that more than a very very small percentage of the population is able to make an actual living doing nothing but creating art or entertaining.

Guess what's going to be one of the hardest-hit industries if we really do hit another real depression?

I'll give you a hint: a few hundreds of millions of would-be artists are going to find out what real work is.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

"record labels do provide many services to artists"

and many of their 'services' are only artificially needed thanks to anti-competitive laws such as government established broadcasting monopolies, cableco monopolies, and laws that deter restaurants and other venues from hosting independent performers (without paying them hefty royalties) under the pretext that someone 'might' infringe. and laws like SOPA are an attempt to extend those anti-competitive laws over to the Internet so that only the government established media cartels can distribute content, which is exactly what they accomplished outside the Internet. They want to ensure that in order for artists and musicians to get their works distributed they must sign away their copy protections to some artificially needed intermediary, which is exactly what they have accomplished outside the Internet. This accomplishment is not an unintended consequence of our laws, it's an intended one, and the purpose of SOPA and similar laws isn't to stop piracy (it won't), it's to stop competition.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[dead_cthulhu]

True enough. But I don't see MAFIAA cokeheads having the charm/allure generally attributed to Señor Diablo in most mythological accounts.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[spire3661]

Its hard to take the social contract seriously when one side keeps altering the deal in their favor whilst giving up nothing in return......

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Grishnakh]

Artists also have to eat, have housing, and pay the bills. If they have to work a normal full-time job to pay for those things and only do their art on the side, that leaves them much less time and energy to pursue their artwork. If they can make money with their art, they can concentrate on it full-time, producing more of it.

Of course, this doesn't mean they should continue to get profits on something 75 years after they made it; 5 or 10 years should really be sufficient.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[dissy]

The purposes of the copyright monpoly vary between legislations, so there is not "one" purpose.

In the United States, it is "to promote the progress and the useful arts", nothing more, nothing less. That is a direct quote from the constitution.

And yet out of the 33 comments currently at +3 at this time, 24 of them out right state the only purpose of copyright law is for people to make profit and money.
These comments then get modded up by others, who also mistakenly believe copyright only exists for profit.

Do you ever feel it get you down, like it's a losing battle? You never seem to, even in face of people like these.
For myself, it feels horribly depressing and futile even trying to get someone to click a provided link to the constitution, as they simply ignore it and continue to parrot this made up notion that art only exists to make money.

How do you do it?

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Vijaysj]

Any musician that I have been exposed to in the past few years was through jamendo. I typically browse to the category of music I am interested in listening to and then randomly play a few albums until I find something that I like.
The publicity given by the record label has certainly not reached me

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[justforgetme]

Has this even the slightest relation to the things copyright holders go to court these days? (ie: digital copies of of movies)

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[justforgetme]

I though it was
"Raping Internet Authors Annually"

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

The majority of movies make little or no profi from the box office runt, even when taking dodgy accounting practises into consideration. The huge profits from the megahits pay for the losses on the other gambles.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Your implication is that without public funding or Copyright, creative works would no longer be produced. History demonstrates how ridiculous this is.

You need a history lesson.

Most of our great works were produced under a system of patronage or direct performance before there existed means of coping.
Even Shakespeare worked for money.

You, sir, are wrong. Let me tell you a few examples, taken out of the literature world, particularly those from my country.

Let's take, for example, Cesário Verde. His work is fundamental to Portuguese literature to the point it is a significant part of the mandatory high school curriculum. He was a basically a farmer whose work was only acknowledged posthumously. His work wasn't produced under a system of patronage or direct performance.

Let's take, for example, Fernando Pessoa, another poet which marked Portuguese literature and is a considerable target of research. He worked as a secretary, doing administrative work for multiple companies. He launched an editor once but the business failed. His work wasn't produced under a system of patronage or direct performance.

Let's take, for example, Antero de Quental, another poet whose work and life marked Portugal and the country's transition to republican form of government. He worked as a typograph. His work wasn't produced under a system of patronage or direct performance.

Let's take, for example, Almada Negreiros. He was a factory worker, but he produced some work under a system of state patronage. Yet, this work consisted mainly of pro-regime propaganda paintings. He is mainly known as a writer.

And José Saramago, which is a Nobel laureate, kept writing at the beginning of his literary career even after publishing companies refused to grant him any support for his work.

So, you see, no one requires a professional income from the arts to be a prolific and influential artist. If you are an artist then you will produce art, no matter how many money you earn from it. And, let's be fair, some of the so called artists whose work is in fact paid for are only able to produce horrendous, unimaginative work at the level of penny dreadfuls. For example, Harlequin Enterprises is a highly successful publishing company, whose only work can be described as "housewife porn" with penny dreadful appeal. Is that sort of "art" what we are trying to incentive?

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[metacell]

Copyright laws are to preserve the right of copying the work for the copyright holder. Period.

Not true. In Europe, copyright also covers performances , the right to attribution, the right to not have your work used in an "insulting" context, and the right of the performing artist to receive economic compensation, just like TFA says. Some or all of these rights also apply to the USA.

Satire and remixes don't matter and are already protected anyway.

Remixes are not allowed under fair use. Satires are not allowed under fair use either, but parodies are, if they don't rely too heavily on the source material. (The difference between a parody and a satire is that a parody lampoons the source material, while a satire lampoons a third party.)

Is a TV set or Microwave oven that much different than a song or a book?

Yes. You can't steal a song. If you copy my song, I still have my copy left.

I am at a loss to see how anyone can keep writing books any more than I can see why anyone
would stock more microwave's in a store from which anyone take anything they wanted.

In the entire USA, at most a few hundred authors can live on their writing alone. The others derive their income from related work, such as holding lectures or writing courses, or having an ordinary day job. In other words, even if it became impossible to live on your writing, most authors wouldn't notice any difference. That's how it always has been, even in the good old days before the Internet.

The situation is similar for music artists - most artists have never been able to live on CD sales, but have had to rely on concerts and merchandise. The main difference the Internet has made, is that they don't have to rely on expensive CD pressing to attract people to their concerts and merchandise - they can just put their music up for free on the Internet.

Newspapers have also been in a similar situation long before the Internet - they've derived most of their income from advertising, not selling newspapers.

I'm an unpublished fiction writer myself, but I realise that even if I succeed and become reasonably famous, it's unlikely I'll receive any significant income from book sales, and I'm probably better off using my fame as a writer to get a more interestng day job.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a new technical tool out there, called a computer and Internet:

Home studio: max 10000$
Distribution: 0$

If I start any other company (except a band), then I expect to put my own money into it at the start.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[metacell]

Your civil rights? Really, you have a civil right to enjoy someone else's works without paying them?

I assume the GP meant that our rights to privacy, free speech and a fair trial are being sacrificed in the name of hunting "pirates".

The DMCA can be (and is) used to suppress free speech. A corporation can issue a take-down notice to a third-party hosting provider such as YouTube, and since the third party has no interest in contesting the take-down notice in court, the corporation gets its way even if the material is legal.

The proposed SOPA bill is even worse, since it'll allow courts to shut down entire sites if one of their users upload infringning content. Since it's impossible for a site such as YouTube to check every clip users upload, the RIAA and MPAA will have the legal right to shut them down any time the want. The hosting providers will survive only as long as they please the copyright holders and do everything they say, including banning perfectly legal content.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[drsmithy]

This is quite a leap. It presupposes that artistic (and other) works enter the world ready and able to be copied, while physical things come into the world with property rights already attached. This is not at all obvious to me. Then again, I don't believe that property rights are natural rights -- I think they are created by law to achieve policy goals (albiet very important ones, for the most part, and goals that history has shown to be very difficult to achieve through any other means). But even if I believed that they were natural rights, by way of, say, the labor theory of property, I think a good case could be made that copyright should be a natural right or, if you prefer, just a type of property right. Indeed, this is apparently an influential view, among copyright scholars.(In short, if one has a right to exclude others from the fruits of one's own labor, then you should be able to exclude others from enjoyment of your creative works just as you can exclude them from taking your stuff.

Property rights exist because you can prevent someone from taking your stuff. The same is not true of "artistic works". You can't make someone unhear that song you just played.

That is the crux of the difference.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[mwvdlee]

In this case, the only thing worse than getting nit-picked is NOT getting nit-picked.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[drsmithy]

You pay the farmer for the eggs, and seem to have no problem with that. Why should the composer get less?

The farmer gets paid once for his eggs. Why should the composer get paid multiple times for the same composition ?

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[metacell]

So when the artist could have made a minimum wage living off selling paintings, if you can duplicate without reciprocation the works of art and he cant survive off just art anymore, he has to take on a menial job that detracts from an otherwise gifted individual.

But that's how the majority of painters already live. Precious few painters can make a living off their art, and most of those that do, do it through government hand-outs.

With or without copyright, the painter would still get paid for the original.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[hawkinspeter]

Those professions tend to get paid to produce work and once they stop working, they don't continue to get paid. The analogue would be paying artists/musicians to produce art - maybe get lots of people who would like to watch to turn up and pay to see them working.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[physicsdot]

Yeah fair enough, I wouldn't lose sleep over Disney either. Though this doesn't then legitimate the piracy of all artwork. Remember that for many artists, the people enjoying, but not paying for, their work will be better off than them.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[JasterBobaMereel]

Most of the well known musicians, artists, Writers etc had a job, struggled, took any work they could, got paid nothing or next to nothing for their art for years before they got lucky and got noticed ...copyright made no difference ....

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[metacell]

Psychological studies consistently show that being financially rewarded makes your work less creative. Money distracts from other motivations, such as the pleasure of doing a good job.

To motivate people to do a good job, you need to pay them enough to take the issue of money off their minds, but money should never be the primary motivation.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[metacell]

Actually... the current copyright system makes it profitable for corporations to market a few artists heavily, which makes it harder for the small artists to be seen in all the media buzz. In some respects, it's a zero-sum game: giving priveleges to some artists automatically makes the situation worse for the others.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Macthorpe]

Playing devil's advocate, but if my employers advanced me some money, then they'd take it out of the next paycheck. How is this different?

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[metacell]

There's a difference between artists and other professions. Most artists do, as a matter of fact, produce art without getting paid. Most writers don't profit off their writing, most graphic artists don't profit off their graphic art, most musicians don't profit off their music, and so on. And that's how it always has been. If they earn any money at all on their art, it's usually far less than they would gain from taking a minimum-wage job. Often, they spend more money on supplies or self-publishing than they gain from sales. And yet, they're happy to do it.

And yes, I'm an unpublished writer myself. I've decided to release some of my writing under Creative Commons, and send some out to publishers, and see which is most succesful.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[metacell]

Your implication is that without public funding or Copyright, creative works would no longer be produced. History demonstrates how ridiculous this is.

You need a history lesson.

Most of our great works were produced under a system of patronage or direct performance before there existed means of coping.
Even Shakespeare worked for money.

Yes? Doesn't that demonstrate that public funding and copyright are not needed for artists to get paid?

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[metacell]

Not only that, his works only came into existence because of "piracy". Shakespeare based almost all of his plays on older works. If he had lived today, and the works he copied were still in copyright, he'd been sued into oblivion.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

cool story, bro.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. A lot of the comments here seem to be under the delusion that people working in art related jobs should want to do it all gratis or otherwise they're bad people. If you want free stuff, good for you but you're living in a fantasy world.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[metacell]

+1

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[pantaril]

Your civil rights? Really, you have a civil right to enjoy someone else's works without paying them?

Of cource i have! I just "enjoyed" reading your work (your comment) without paying for it!

But you thing it is wrong? You thing you shall pay for using other's intelectual works? But what is exactly this work you are speaking of? One word, two words or whole sentence? I bet you said some copyrighted sentences in your life without paying anyone or without even noticing they were copyrighted. (Before you start to write that only longer unique combinations of words can be copyrighted let me say that i hear quite often about copyright court cases involving as little as 3 words or few seconds of complete silence!)

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[metacell]

The law in any country puts limitations on copyright, such as fair use. I.e, it balances the interests of the creator with the interests of the public.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

As a software developer, I don't get the copyright to anything I produce.

I get paid for the time I spend doing the work, just like a plumber, and even if what I produced gets as popular as Mickey Mouse, and is used for 50 years after I write the code, I will still need to work, rather than living off the income of what I produce today.

You know, just like people who want to get rid of copyright law claim that musicians would need to make a living from live concerts, rather than living on the income from something they produced 10 years ago.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[metacell]

There are still natural scarcities the artist can take advantage of. For example, his personal endorsement (many people are prepared to pay more for the "official" version). His personal labour (holding lectures, writing courses and workshops). Being first to market (many people are prepared to pay more to get the work just one day earlier).

Let me know when you are willing to work for free, but in the mean time the artists knowledge and skill is his only stock in trade. Don't take that from him.

Lots of people are willing to work for free. Like all the people who do fansubs and scanlations, or write fanfic, or put up their original art on the Internet. I've released one of my short stories under Creative Commons, and more are to follow.

It has always been the case that most artists can't live off their art. The problem with art is that it's so much fun, too many people want to do it. There just aren't enough job opportunities for them all.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[ghostdoc]

Musicians have happily survived for vast swathes of time where reproduction was impossible. Hearing music meant listening to a musician play it for the vast majority of time that humans have been creating and listening to music.

Luckily humans still enjoy doing this: people like actually listening to live musicians and musicians still enjoy performing music for people.

The business model that made a lot of middlemen very rich by taking a recording of the live music and selling it to people who wanted to listen to the music outside of a live performance is dead, but that doesn't mean that there aren't other business models that work just as well for musicians and music fans. Note that this business model did not actually make the musicians any more money, on average (yes, a few musicians got very rich, but many many more got broken).

Unfortunately for the middlemen (but fortunately for everyone else involved) none of those other business models work nearly as well for the middlemen. Hence their struggles to remain relevant and destroy any other business models while the musicians and music fans slowly work out that the other business models do work and that there is more than one way to make a living from being a musician.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[metacell]

After all, if you can't sell enough in ten years to feed your family while you work on the next creation, you should probably take
up farming instead.

But that is not what the Pirate Party is proposing. They are proposing total abolition of copyright, (and by logical extension, patents too).

They are essentially saying that If I get a peek at your great manuscript, I can rush it out before you even get a chance to sell the leatherbound first editions.

No, the Pirate Party wants to reduce the copyright term to five years, while allowing non-commercial copying for private use, and retaining the creator's right to attribution.

The term five years is based on the fact that most commercial culture collects most of its revenue within five years of publication.

It's all on their web page.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but a lot of people do. And those that can get paid to make art, generally create better art than those who do it as a hobby.

You must really like Britney Spears and Justin Bieber.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[pantaril]

Any accountant of any form worth their salt is doing it because they geinuinely like the artform, and would do so pay or no pay.
Any software developer of any form worth their salt is doing it because they geinuinely like the artform, and would do so pay or no pay.
Any website designer of any form worth their salt is doing it because they geinuinely like the artform, and would do so pay or no pay.
Any scientist of any form worth their salt is doing it because they geinuinely like the artform, and would do so pay or no pay.

I'll sign up with your "let's make all copywritten works free" when you agree to do your own job for free too.

Nobody wants you to work for free. You can sign any contract with any employer you want.
Just stop saying others what they can do with information they legaly acquired.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Hentes]

These are the costs record labels charge for their own services. The problem is that record labels are just part of the Big Media conglomaration that owns studios, radios, TVs etc. And it's very hard to get around them, an artist trying to freelance will not get any radio or TV time because they are owned by the same cartel that owns the record companies. Now with online stores and radios starting to gain popularity, there is a way to circumvent them, and this is what makes these companies really afraid, not piracy. Piracy has been there for generations, but now there is a new business model that could turn the whole market upside down. This is why the media cartel tries to outlaw any technology that could be used to compete them.

(Also, couldn't you just post a link instead of this monstrous wall of numerical data?)

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Hentes]

Any artist of any form worth their salt is doing it because they geinuinely like the artform, and would do so pay or no pay.

They may like it, but if it doesn't pay the bills they will have to find some real work, degrading art to only a hobby.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[zenasprime]

I am under no obligation to support anyone simply because I enjoy something. I can enjoy a tune that I've incidentally heard, and hum to it even, but whether or not I choose to purchase goods from an artist who chooses to sell those goods is something entirely different. I am obliged, by law, to respect a copyright (i.e. not make copies) if it is the intention of the copyright holder to enforce that copyright, but I have no legal obligation to financially "support" the copyright holder in order to respect their copyright in accordance to the law.

You seem to think that copyright is some form of artist welfare, which isn't the purpose of copyright. A limited monopoly on the reproduction and performance rights of a creative work is all that the copyright holder is entitled to. Whether or not a copyright hold is able and willing to financially support themselves through the production of copies and performances during that limited time is not at all within the scope of copyright.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Los trique grandestos pullos para senior Diablo, es convincidad todo el mundo es no existo.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Twylite]

Invalid analogy. Eggs have integrated DRM.

The farmer puts time and effort into rearing and maintaining a hen. The hen can produce physical resources (eggs), each of which may be disposed of (sold, consumed or destroyed) by the farmer exactly once. Once the purchaser has used/consumer or disposed of the egg, it is gone (*). The farmer could also opt to sell the hen, albeit at a much higher price to compensate for the loss of expected income from the sale of eggs.

(*) In general it is not possible for a buyer to produce a chicken from an egg, as the eggs are unfertilised. A farmer may sell you a fertilised egg at a higher price, mindful of future competition; the buyer would still face a relatively large investment to rear the hen.

The composer puts time and effort into creating a composition. The value of a composition derives from an audience paying for the performance of that composition, but (1) the composer may not be the performer, and (2) any audience member could be a performance or could record the performance and subsequently re-perform it (possibly for another audience). In effect any performer, or audience member with technological support, can duplicate eggs with no need for a hen, or can recreate the hen from the egg. The composer, who has created a unique and original "immortal hen", stands to gain no benefit from this creation.

Economics dictates that when the marginal cost of duplication approaches zero, the marginal value of the composition will tend towards zero, and the value of a performance will be determined only by the demand to see a particular performer playing live. The only economically sensible approach for the composer is to recover the entire compensation for his/her time and effort from the first audience, who are willing to pay for the novelty of being the first audience of a new composition.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Roger Lindsjo]

The analogue would be paying artists/musicians to produce art - maybe get lots of people who would like to watch to turn up and pay to see them working.

Thats a great idea. Maybe even thousands of people would like that. We could rent a huge area, build something so it is easy to see the artists, a stage, and then anyone that want to watch and listen to the artists would have to pay. That might even open up for other revenues such as selling t-shirts and other apparel that people can wear to show which artists they like. And even businesses selling food and beverages could get in on this. I really hope someone will try this.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[pantaril]

No. That is precisely the point. There won't be a scarcity. The moment the art is sold, shown, exhibited, in the world you propose it could instantly be copied printed replicated by anyone who happens to get near it with a camer.

This is a good thing! The more culture is shared, the greater benefit for society as whole.

Let me know when you are willing to work for free

Nobody want's you to work for free. This just shows that current copyright is broken because it cannot stop copying and without this control of distribution it cannot provide compensations to artist. We clearly need new model of artist compensation, which won't limit distribution of information! Artist are shooting themself into foot if they support current form of copyright.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[drsmithy]

The composer puts time and effort into creating a composition. The value of a composition derives from an audience paying for the performance of that composition, but (1) the composer may not be the performer, and (2) any audience member could be a performance or could record the performance and subsequently re-perform it (possibly for another audience).

Recorded music is cheaper than a live show of the same music. Were your conclusion valid, we would have already witnessed the death of live performances, as people would purchase the cheaper (and reusable !) recorded version instead.

Economics dictates that when the marginal cost of duplication approaches zero, the marginal value of the composition will tend towards zero, and the value of a performance will be determined only by the demand to see a particular performer playing live. The only economically sensible approach for the composer is to recover the entire compensation for his/her time and effort from the first audience, who are willing to pay for the novelty of being the first audience of a new composition.

Why ? What prevents another performance from occurring ?

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[L4t3r4lu5]

I really, really hate to use this, but I can't think of a better way of putting it.

[Citation needed]. Yes, it looks like a copypaste of a website, but a source is always welcome.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Twylite]

Recorded music is cheaper than a live show of the same music. Were your conclusion valid, we would have already witnessed the death of live performances, as people would purchase the cheaper (and reusable !) recorded version instead.

As I said "the value of a performance will be determined only by the demand to see a particular performer playing live". This does not necessarily compensate the composer in any way. Many composers are not themselves performers, and any performer could perform the composition - live - with no compensation offered to the composer.

Why ? What prevents another performance from occurring ?

Who will pay for it? If you are satisfied with a recording you can obtain a copy (and as the availability of copies grows their marginal value tends to zero). If you want a live performance you will pay to see the performance, but that means you are paying the performer rather than the composer.

In the case where the performer is the composer, and is reasonably desired by audiences, then the composer gets to make money from additional performances. Contrary to popular belief there are relatively few live gigs where the face of the band (the performer who will draw audiences, irrespective of who the other band members are) is the composer of both the music and the lyrics.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Richard_at_work]

I'm actually having difficulty deciding which side you mean....

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the composer doesn't give me eggs?
I have no problem with copyright law preventing people from selling copies of others work.
That is all copyright is supposed to ensure imho.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Dekker3D]

I'm just going to hang my comment off this one.

Personally, it wouldn't affect me much if copyright were completely nulled all of a sudden. And yes, my main activities are in all sorts of copyrightable stuff: 3D art, code and music. Still, the only time the copyright laws have directly affected me were when a group I used to work with tried to steal my creations using one of our copyright laws here in the netherlands, and prevent me from using them anymore. In a world where everything can be freely copied, I'd still have work since someone would need to -make- the stuff first and people would just pay me to be the one making it. Yes, sometimes people don't want something generic floating around on the internet; they want something specific.

Of course, it would affect me if the disappearance of these laws were to completely eridicate all software companies and the like. I'm not sure how that would work. But I could imagine they'd be able to live on as well, even if they'd have to change things around a lot. Maybe a donation pool funded style of development?

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

This is one thing that confuses me: at what point did casual entertainment become a useful art?

It entertains you, doesn't it ? That is its use. That's why you pay.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[zenasprime]

He is refering to the side who is altering existing copyright LAW in their favor. (i.e. the copyright holders)

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[drsmithy]

As I said "the value of a performance will be determined only by the demand to see a particular performer playing live". This does not necessarily compensate the composer in any way.

It does if he charges the groups he sells his composition to properly.

Who will pay for it?

Everyone who wants to go. Just like today.

If you are satisfied with a recording you can obtain a copy (and as the availability of copies grows their marginal value tends to zero). If you want a live performance you will pay to see the performance, but that means you are paying the performer rather than the composer.

Which is, again, why the composer needs to charge the group appropriately when he sells them his composition.

What this eventually comes back to, is that the Copyright lobby only wants copyrighted goods to be treated like real property when it suits them, but not when it suits the purchaser. They want all the benefits of their infinite-supply good, without any of the consequences, while still being able to charge the consumer like it was a scarce good.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[sincewhen]

This gives me something to ponder...

If breaking copyright laws is now a criminal offence, is increasing the duration of copyrights a form of retroactive/retrospective legislation?

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

But maybe it's a false balance?

Culture can be available and at the same time new culture can be created, without any copyright. That's how it was before the 1600's (when copyright was created), and it can be like that again especially with the Internet being around today.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[flyneye]

How about the basic premise that copyright laws are to preserve the right of the copyright holder FOR A SHORT TIME. Don't forget about that. It was written in the beginning and defined as 4 years so the holder could profit then release what is held to the world to promote the progress of science and the useful arts.
        Well that 4 years turned into 14 with a 14 year renewal, then 28 with 14, then 28 with 28 renewal, but that took more than 100 years for corruption to wear down.
Then in 1976, corruption finally screwed a bad copyright system to death, lifetime plus 50 . It's gotten worse since, so bad in fact that even Nature jumped to the aid of good and right by assassinating Senator Bono, an evil scientologist , transexual raising, Hollywood has-been who would sell his country out for Xenu. Thank God for pine trees!
        My point, copyright didn't work as it is subject to creeping corruption , it doesn't work today in any of its capacities. In a world, changing ever faster and creating new demands of mankind, ideas and inventions are needed in the public domain far quicker than the original 4 years, let alone this modern garbage.
        Since we couldn't handle the concept of copyright, it DOESN"T WORK! When crap doesn't work we throw it away so it doesn't continually get in the way and draw vermin. Is that simple enough for you or do we need to redistill it into one syllable words?

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

"Repugnant In All Aspects"

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the one thing remaining that the labels actually do, they front the band money much like an angel investor would for a company, but unlike the angel, they demand 100% ownership.

The rest of it isn't actually things the label contributes since 100% of it is charged against the band's paltry royalties. That's how a band can have an album go double platinum and never get a check from the label.

You are upset because the expenses of releasing a record are charged against the record sales before there is any "profit" to distribute? How is this unfair? Is there any other business sector in which the founders inject no cash, yet expect to take home a large slice of sales before the investors have even received their investment back? And in what sense do record labels demand 100% ownership? The band still has the right to royalties, don't they?

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Twylite]

It does if he charges the groups he sells his composition to properly.

Group, singular. Once the composition has been performed it can be recreated from the performance, and there is no need for any performer or group beyond the first to pay (to anyone) more than the cost of "reverse engineering" the performance (which many musicians can do quite easily). Given that a second group intending to perform the composition will either reverse engineer it or pay (someone), it is economically sensible for the first group to undercut any price requested by the composer, as this maximizes the first group's profit. In a very short time the marginal value of the composition tends to zero, and all profits are derived exclusively by the performers.

Which means, in your view, a composer's market is performers, and the value of a composition is determined by the amount which a performer is prepared to pay for the novelty of being the first to perform the composition (and the expectation that said novelty will cause audiences to choose to see that performer live, both initially and in future by virtue of being the seminal performer)?

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Ma'at]

Who do you think ultimately pays for the advertising, the studio time, the costs of live shows, etc.?

As someone who worked in a recording studio for many years, I can say that very often it's the artist who pays for a lot of that stuff. The days of the 80s and label-funded month-long coke-binge-cum-recording-sessions are long, long gone. Any artist who isn't established enough to be a near-certain money maker for the label is probably paying for studio time, production, and tour costs out of pocket. Even mid-tier artists will only get an advance on the order of $10,000 to $20,000 which doesn't go very far when there are four of five people in the band who need to eat and sleep somewhere on top of hiring a studio.

I certainly know artists who don't want their work shared for free, and I think that copyright of a reasonable term is important to protect their preference, but the system we have now is pretty much built to let corporations steal from the commons and then sell their taking back to the public for ever.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[marcosdumay]

Your eployer won't ask for the money back, with interest, plus participation on what you brought with the money.

It is either a loan or an investiment. RIAA has it both ways. (With also some accounting tricks.)

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[dr2chase]

There seems to be some disagreement about the accounting for the costs of services provided. The advance is easy to account, but all the promotional hoo-ha also needs to be paid back, and some artists think that the record companies overcharge for that. Sort of like buying your groceries at the company store on credit.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Ma'at]

You are upset because the expenses of releasing a record are charged against the record sales before there is any "profit" to distribute? How is this unfair? Is there any other business sector in which the founders inject no cash, yet expect to take home a large slice of sales before the investors have even received their investment back? And in what sense do record labels demand 100% ownership? The band still has the right to royalties, don't they?

That's not how it works, though. The label gets their cut of profit out of the very first copy sold. After that, all running expenses (pressing, distribution, promotion, 'breakage') also get taken out of each copy sold. Out of what's left, the artist's share, nothing gets distributed until the advance is paid back. Because of this, almost nobody makes any money off of record sales. However, they do get songwriting royalties, which can be a good amount of money if you are getting a lot of radio play. (This is why Pete Townshend is the only super-wealth member of The Who, because he wrote all the songs.)

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[delinear]

No. That is precisely the point. There won't be a scarcity. The moment the art is sold, shown, exhibited, in the world you propose it could instantly be copied printed replicated by anyone who happens to get near it with a camer. This could happen before the artist makes a single thin dime off of it.

If that were the case original paintings wouldn't sell for many times the cost of prints of the painting. In fact people perceive huge value in owning the original work, whereas for a print they will generally pay the cost of the materials plus some small markup for the retailer.

Yes you will still have those that do it for the love of the doing. But far fewer. Even artists have to put bread on the table.

This is art. Surely quality is far more important than quantity. Why do you assume having a fewer number of people doing it for the love of it will someone be worse for society than a large number of people doing it out of a mercenary desire for money?

Let me know when you are willing to work for free, but in the mean time the artists knowledge and skill is his only stock in trade. Don't take that from him. You pay the farmer for the eggs, and seem to have no problem with that. Why should the composer get less?

It's never been about working for free. It's about the artist being able to have exclusive rights for long enough that he can make a reasonable living, not multi-millionaires being able to hold onto their rights for the duration of their entire lives plus 70 years or whatever so they can continue to milk the same piece of work over and over.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[metacell]

These comments then get modded up by others, who also mistakenly believe copyright only exists for profit.

Do you ever feel it get you down, like it's a losing battle? You never seem to, even in face of people like these.
For myself, it feels horribly depressing and futile even trying to get someone to click a provided link to the constitution, as they simply ignore it and continue to parrot this made up notion that art only exists to make money.

How do you do it?

I can't speak for the GP, but I feel good every time I go to the Pirate Bay and look at how many downloaders my torrents have. That's a battle I'm winning every day.

I can't be sure, but I think the current copyright system is so unsustainable it will collapse sooner or later. If the politicians don't change the law, it'll just be ignored and circumvented until it becomes irrelevant.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Kjella]

Or as it's been known since 1980: "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[mcmonkey]

Does your employer charge you rent for the desk where you do your job?

Labels charge musicians for studio time.

That is how it is different.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[metacell]

More importantly: it's a well know fact today that their exists certain 'recipes' to make a successful work of art if what you are aiming for is money.

Oh dear God, is that why so American movies tend to have such stereotypical characters and story lines?

Bankrupting Hollywood would in itself be a good reason to abolish copyright... but unfortunately, I don't think abolishing copyright will affect their profits that much. There are many other ways to make a profit from commercial film.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to break it to you but the vast majority, if not all, laws are just so much man made garbage. Your "rights" are man made as well. This point of view cannot be defeated.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

How is the parent of this post a troll? Seems like a valid argument to me. I'm not saying I agree with it 100% ,but it's still valid.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[smitty777]

Not a bad thought - but I think of it more like a speculative investment. You might be funding the next Facebook, or you might be funding ILoveClippy.com. But I think there's some risk management, as someone else pointed out.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[smitty777]

I think that is spot on. Add to that the available means for both recording (home computers) and distribution (the interwebs) saturating the musicspace, and I think you have a pretty decent explanation of the chaotic state of the music scene today.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[smitty777]

Sooooo....isn't that the definition of an investment? Because you're expecting to get some profit? I think what you're proposing would simply discourage people from investing.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Trevin]

Actually, copyright doesn't even do that. See Boldrin & Levine's "Against Intellectual Monopoly".

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Richard_at_work]

Is he? Consumers seem hell bent on altering the deal as well...

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[smitty777]

From the tone of this thread, I doesn't sound like there are many artists involved in the discussion. It's not all about making $$ - yes, you want people to hear what you've made. BUT, an important (maybe the most important) aspect of being an artist is originality. I am an artist that happens to have a nice tech job, so it's not the end of the world if I don't get royalties. But I would be extremely upset if I found out someone had copied my idea and taken full credit for it. What makes you a worthwhile artist is what sets you aside from the crowd and makes you an original. That's why I want my material copyrighted.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Drew_9999]

But then, that gets right at the heart at the problem. There's way too much supply and not enough demand. Lots of people are expecting to spend 40+ hours a week "making art" and get paid a sufficient wage to live on it.

See the thing is, your art is only worth what some generous (that's right) individual is willing to pay for it. No one needs your particular works. Whatever it is, someone else is almost certainly creating very similar works from their own creativity for a much lower price, and likely for free (or at least for only the cost of materials). That same individual is holding another job to pay the bills, and creating art because it's his/her passion. That is, has always been, and will always be the case. It's only in very recent history that more than a very very small percentage of the population is able to make an actual living doing nothing but creating art or entertaining.

Guess what's going to be one of the hardest-hit industries if we really do hit another real depression?

I'll give you a hint: a few hundreds of millions of would-be artists are going to find out what real work is.

There's actually a huge demand for artwork, and we we can make it faster and get it to more customers, faster, than ever before. You're right that a lot of people want to make art for a living, and yes, some of those will be weeded out, just like any job. I am all for someone sitting in their bedroom, making art of whatever kind, and releasing it for free. But those people simply cannot keep up the pace with people who do it full time. Those people cannot keep up with industry trends as well. Those people cannot improve as quickly. And though it's possible, it's damn hard for them to make anything large like a feature film. The only film I worked on used limited animation (think late night Cartoon Network) and it still took dozens of animators thousands of hours- and that's just part of making the film, even if you take out all of the business and advertising stuff. Take a look at your ipod. Take a look at your DVD shelf. Take a look at the art on your walls. How much of that was done by independent artists who did their work for free? Maybe you're an exception, but probably little or none.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

None of what you say has been my experience. I was encouraged in school to keep working on my art, and even had a teacher let me skip class if I just turned in some artwork each week. I had a job that went late nights and it was an art class I was always late to, and she thought I had some talent.

I do enjoy playing original music for a live crowd with my band, but I can play for hours in a dark room with no one listening and still be pretty damn happy about creating something just for myself.

It would be great to be able to quit the day job. I'd be able to spend more time creating art for others, and improving my skills. The lack of a paycheck for doing so is EXACTLY what keeps me away from my art.

You seem to have had another experience.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. There is no 'right' to be compensated. Should you get to enjoy my face walking past you evrey day without me being compensated for it?

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Shompol]

How am I supposed to know if I enjoy the work before having access to it? I once decided to get some music to listen and bought 12 CDs of groups whose names I could recognize -- all of them ended up as coasters, except a couple which I already had bootleg copies of and knew what it was beforehand. (This was before the Internet age)

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[sjames]

They're actually charges against only the artist's royalties. It's your call if that's upsetting or not, but you can't really call something a contribution if it is billed at full price.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Fned]

Your civil rights? Really, you have a civil right to enjoy someone else's works without paying them?

Yes. Absolutely.

The civil right to enjoy someone else's works without paying them existed BEFORE copyright. Copyright is the civil AGREEMENT that we made to partially abridge that civil RIGHT in the interest of promoting the production of creative works.

Don't sweat it though -- creators still enjoy the one perfect right to restrict access to their works that they always have, which is not to create, release, or perform the work until payment is made or a contractural agreement for payment is made.

Seriously: you've never heard a song performed by someone in public, never watched a DVD at a friend's house, heard a movie quote repeated by someone, never been inspired to create something new based on something you've seen, never even once purchased anything used, that had so much as a brand logo on it? Do you have ANY moral standing whatsoever to argue that the free exchange of ideas is ANYTHING BUT a civil right?

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Fned]

Sooooo....isn't that the definition of an investment? Because you're expecting to get some profit?

You invest because you expect a profit. That does not mean that if you invest, you deserve a profit, because that implies that your expectation cannot be incorrect, which is stupid.

People should definitely be discouraged from expecting profits from investments in unprofitable things.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Asmodae]

the exceptions that prove the rule

Ok, pet peave of mine. That's a terrible phrase, and Cecil will tell you why. Basically it boils down to this example: If you see a no U-Turn sign that means that everywhere you do NOT see explicitly prohibiting you from making U-turns, U-turns are legal/OK. The exception proves the counter-rule.

/Pedant

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[icebike]

How is the parent of this post a troll? Seems like a valid argument to me. I'm not saying I agree with it 100% ,but it's still valid.

I'm not complaining.
The copyright laws as they stand have gotten out of hand in terms of duration, and the hatred of that has tainted the slashdot mind.

This is Slashdot. You get marked troll instantly if you

1) badmouth Apple in any way
2) support Microsoft in any way
3) support any part of copyright and or patents.

You just have to accept that 98% of the users on Slashdot have never created anything that could be covered by copyright or patents,
want everything for free, and are part of the entitlement generation. It goes with the territory. You take your lumps. If you weren't
posting as AC you would get marked troll by the copyright liberation army as well.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[smitty777]

Hmmmm...well, not to mince words,but I said "expect", and you said "deserve" a profit. I don't know of any investors that think they *deserve* a profit. Investing, almost by definition, implies a level of risk and gambling. I definitely agree with your statement that people should be discouraged from expecting profits from unprofitable things. Kinda reminds me of the real-estate bubble fiasco we just went through.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[brit74]

The RIAA does not have it both ways. They lose a lot of money on bands who didn't make it successful. Do you really think they go after bands who didn't earn-back the money they advanced?

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Dahamma]

That and international box office/DVD sales/TV licensing, which can often take a movie that underperformed in US box office to profitability...

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Dahamma]

Huge amounts of money are made by live music performances

Yeah, can't wait for "Avatar Live".

But seriously, why should that matter? If an artist records a song, he should be able to profit from selling the recording and not be forced to tour live if he doesn't want to. Jesus Christ, people. Paying $1 for a damn song isn't going to kill you, and if it's not worth it to you, I'm sure you can live without it. "It's too expensive, so I have the right to steal it" is just a stupid argument. There are valid reasons for patents and copyrights, they should just be used for those reasons and not to create permanent monopolies...

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[drsmithy]

But seriously, why should that matter? If an artist records a song, he should be able to profit from selling the recording and not be forced to tour live if he doesn't want to.

Why ? Why should someone be able to spend a day recording a song and then sit on their arse for the rest of their life making money from it just because they're an "artist" ? Why shouldn't they have to go out and _work_ every day for an income like most other people do ?

What is the justification for creating arbitrary laws to extend this extraordinary privilege to *entertainers* ?

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Endo13]

I didn't say there wasn't demand. What I said is the supply far exceeds the demand.

The only film I worked on used limited animation (think late night Cartoon Network) and it still took dozens of animators thousands of hours- and that's just part of making the film, even if you take out all of the business and advertising stuff.

Doesn't change the nature of art: It's still only ever worth what someone is willing to pay for it. It won't make my job more efficient, won't feed my kids, won't fix my car, won't make my life more convenient, or any of the myriads of other things that non-art products provide. If you choose to spend that time making that art, that's your choice. But don't go crying to the government for a handout when your art didn't make you the money you thought it would.

Take a look at your ipod.

Don't have one. Music isn't really a big deal to me. If I listen to music, it's generally FM radio in my car (rare), Pandora, or indie music streamed online.

Take a look at your DVD shelf.

Also not too much here. Nothing I couldn't live without. Plenty of stuff on Youtube and other free sites that's sufficiently entertaining to get the job done if the DVDs didn't exist.

Take a look at the art on your walls.

The handful of artsy things that will be on my walls if I ever get around to hanging them were all made by relatives or close friends, and given as gifts.

It's now relatively easy to live with all your art and entertainment provided for free (legally!). The internet has changed everything. Welcome to the 21st century.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[registrar]

$200 million movies are too expensive and they contribute little of value to society. We don't need to reorganise our society (copyright, DRM) around the notion that people should be able make such movies and expect the government to protect their investment.

If the "work" and "effort" are so large that they can't be funded without specially designed laws being enacted, then society doesn't really need the product. Big budget movies aren't generally particularly good, and cheaply produced movies are often excellent. So, if you want a $200 million movie, pay for it out of your own pocket money. If you don't have that much money, make a movie with less special effects and more frigging acting--- just don't expect me to help you make money out of it.

As you note, the vast majority of movie profits are made very early, and people watch them in theatres for the experience, despite the fact that they are easily able to download them. That market should probably be protected, to encourage the creation of reasonably cheap, high quality movies.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Dahamma]

I already answered your question in the post...

Paying $1 for a damn song isn't going to kill you, and if it's not worth it to you, I'm sure you can live without it. "It's too expensive, so I have the right to steal it" is just a stupid argument.

If it's so easy and artists are so lazy, go make your own art and entertain yourself! What is the justification for copying it then? I swear, the only people in this acting more entitled than the copyright owners are the pirates...

And I also already answered your other question - copyrights do serve a purpise, for a movie 2-3 years is probably plenty, for a musician maybe a bit longer; but "70 years after death" is absurd, and 120 years for a corporation is insane.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[drsmithy]

I already answered your question in the post...

No, you didn't. You gave a particular example using a small amount of money and dismissed it as insignificant. You in no way addressed the actual question, which is why should Copyright holders be extended these extraordinarily generous legal privileges. "It's only a dollar" is no more a defense of Copyright than "it's only a pat down" is a defense of the TSA.

If it's so easy and artists are so lazy, go make your own art and entertain yourself!

I said neither of these things.

What is the justification for copying it then?

Why is a justification necessary ? Copying things is normal and natural human behaviour that has been going on since the beginning of time (and is also demonstrated by other animals). It's the basis of all culture, learning and progress.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Kalriath]

Do you really think they don't?

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Kalriath]

While true, do be aware of the small independents - the same ones that people on this very site tout as being the alternative to big-name label music/movies. They have precisely zero control over what the big label lobbyists do, and have as much input into and control over the legislature as you do - yet it seems you would advocate treating them with the same disdain as you would the big labels.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Kalriath]

While valid, that doesn't address the issue of P2P. If it's not OK to sell it, then why should it be OK to give it away to literally everyone?

I personally believe that while small-scale personal copying (i.e giving a mix CD to a single friend) should be decriminalised (I'm still not sure about legalised, but definitely decriminalised), sharing large scale on a P2P network should not be. It has the same net effect on the creator as a person mass-producing dodgy copies and selling it.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[drsmithy]

Group, singular. Once the composition has been performed it can be recreated from the performance, and there is no need for any performer or group beyond the first to pay (to anyone) more than the cost of "reverse engineering" the performance (which many musicians can do quite easily).

Unless the composer, say, negotiates with multiple groups simultaneously. Or contractually binds the first one not to perform until he has sold the work to other groups.

Given that a second group intending to perform the composition will either reverse engineer it or pay (someone), it is economically sensible for the first group to undercut any price requested by the composer, as this maximizes the first group's profit.

It is also economically sensible for the composer to only sell the work for enough to support him while he creates and sells the next one.

So it appears we have a standoff.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

So, why don't you quit reading, or quit polluting the comments? Either that, or try to post something of your own.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course helped along by your stagnant posts as well.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Twylite]

Unless the composer, say, negotiates with multiple groups simultaneously. Or contractually binds the first one not to perform until he has sold the work to other groups.

Either of which reduce the value of the right of first performance.

It is also economically sensible for the composer to only sell the work for enough to support him while he creates and sells the next one.

According to what theory of economics? There is undoubtedly both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the production of creative works, but there exist at least some potential creators who are rational, self-interested actors who will pursue alternatives that have a higher expected return than the maximum recognisable value of their creation.

An economic incentive such as copyright monopoly raises the maximum recognisable value of a creation. In its absence there will be some actors that choose an alternative vocation, and society/culture will never receive those potential creations.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[drsmithy]

Either of which reduce the value of the right of first performance.

And ?

According to what theory of economics?

Uh, the same one that states the performer will try and maximise *his* gain out of the transaction. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and all that.

There is undoubtedly both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the production of creative works, but there exist at least some potential creators who are rational, self-interested actors [wikipedia.org] who will pursue alternatives that have a higher expected return than the maximum recognisable value of their creation.

So without special privileges they'll be just like any other "economic actor" then ? Why is removing an arbitrary and behaviour-distorting incentive a bad thing ?

An economic incentive such as copyright monopoly raises the maximum recognisable value of a creation. In its absence there will be some actors that choose an alternative vocation, and society/culture will never receive those potential creations.

The only place that argument leads is perpetual Copyright, since with anything less there will always be "some actors that choose an alternative vocation, and society/culture will never receive [their] potential creations".

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Dahamma]

Sorry, but pretty much nothing you said makes any sense...

1) value to society has nothing to do with "a right to steal something"...
2) no special laws need be enacted to fund anything, copyright has protected this for over 200 years.
3) If you want to WATCH a $200M movie, pay for THAT out of your own "pocket money". Why in hell do you feel like you should be able to take their work for free??
4) see #1 - special effects, acting abilities, etc have nothing to do with the argument, another straw man. You aren't obligated to help anyone make money if it's a bad movie - just don't watch it if you think it's a bad movie, jeez.
5) back again to *your* definition of worthwhile art that should be "protected". How arrogant.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[jwhitener]

Most digital graphic designers are almost always slaves to their customers' requirements.

Musicians also. Some musicians are trend setters, but many of them, even 'indie' ones, go to other shows and consider that part of the job: to learn about what others are doing, what crowds like, etc... you almost have to if you want to replace your real day job with music full time. Especially if you are at the small club / bar level.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Drew_9999]

If we consider the supply to be infinite digital copies, then yes, the supply is effectively more than the demand. If we consider the supply to be the relatively small amount of new work that most people spend their time watching and listening to, then the supply is limited and the demand is effectively unlimited. Yes, digital things can be infinitely reproduced. Does that mean that content creators shouldn't get paid? I say no. Are you saying that copyright laws are a handout? Though the current system is broken, at their core they are just laws that allow people to distribute a product and have a chance at making a profit. There are laws in place to protect all kinds of occupations. I don't see how artists deserve any less. You don't like art too much. Okay. I don't have any problem with any of the ways you listed that you get your tiny art fix. That "free" stuff you mention is mostly paid for by advertising, and still protected by copyright. But let me get this right. You are perfectly satisfied with all of the art in your life and the way in which you receive it. You're against copyright... why? Or were you just complaining about artists getting paid to do work that isn't "real" or vital to the survival of the human species?

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Endo13]

If we consider the supply to be infinite digital copies, then yes, the supply is effectively more than the demand. If we consider the supply to be the insanely huge amount of new work that "artists" are cranking out for money these days, supply is still virtually unlimited.

FTFY.

Are you saying that copyright laws are a handout? Though the current system is broken, at their core they are just laws that allow people to distribute a product and have a chance at making a profit.

Copyright laws now allow someone to spend a few hours creating "art" and reaping profit from it for the rest of their life, and allow the next person in line to profit for the next 75 years. Given that a lot of this crap is stuff that wasn't even original to begin with, YES it is most definitely a handout.

There are laws in place to protect all kinds of occupations. I don't see how artists deserve any less.

Currently, they're getting about 100x more. Profiting from the same work for the next 150 years? Having the feds go after replicas of stuff because it might maybe perhaps reduce the potential profit by 1%? Asking border crossing security to search electronic storage for infringing material? And the list goes on and on.

We're still paying royalties on "Happy Birthday", ffs, and the person who originally got the copyright didn't even write the damn music, she stole it from someone else. [sarcasm] Oh, but of course the words! They're so novel and creative! [/sarcasm]

That's just one example among hundreds of millions of how copyright law is insanely excessive and is being heavily abused.

I have no problem with artists making a fair amount of profit from their work. I have a huge problem with the current system today. And the worst part of all is, it isn't even the artists making most of the profits. It's the media cartels. Fuck them.

Re:He seems to confuse the purpose of copyright

[Drew_9999]

I'm not arguing that the overall supply of art isn't far greater than the overall demand. But that's not important because not all art is worth the same amount. An ounce of gold is an ounce of gold, and once it's been refined one bar of it is worth no more than another. That's not so with art. The demand for some art is higher than the demand for other art.

As I said, the current laws are broken. They last far too long and media companies have gone about protecting their assets in a stupid way. But throwing them out completely is an overreaction. There's no reason that we can't have copyrights last for a reasonable amount of time. The fact that some art may not take much time to create isn't relevant. Sure, you are free to take into account the time it takes to make art. Most people don't.

I have no problem with businesses owning copyrights and/or paying artists to work for hire. If a business hires an artist and the artist agrees to give up the copyright, then both parties have agreed to the terms and there's no problem. Artists are free to make their own business, or just sell their work outright, keeping all the profit for themselves. The reason that most don't is because they'd rather be making art than running a business.

GPL

[bonch]

I have to make the same point I always make in these articles (by the way, isn't this like the third Pirate Party submission in the last month?)--if you do away with copyright laws, you do away with the GPL. The GPL is a copyright license that requires copyright law to have any legal power over what people do with GPL code. Go ahead and take a look at how many times the term copyright appears in the GPL:

- "'The Program' refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this License. Each licensee is addressed as 'you'. 'Licensees' and 'recipients' may be individuals or organizations."
- "All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met."
- "However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so."

And so on. Without copyright laws, the GPL is powerless.

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

[citation needed]

Re:GPL

[SteveFoerster]

So? If you get rid of copyright, the GPL would have no purpose anyway. Like, in a good way.

Re:GPL

[jank1887]

well, without the copyright, you also wouldn't need the GPL, right? you would be free to decompile, copy, distribute whatever source you want. right? anything you release, anyone else could use.

Re:GPL

[martin-boundary]

And so on. Without copyright laws, the GPL is powerless.

Powerless to do what exactly? Powerless to force people to give back their changes to the community? In a world without copyright, that's already trivial: any member of the community can just copy anything they like and make changes, then publish the new version, etc. All legally. It's a better world, but until then, we use the GPL *today* to undo some of the damage that copyright does *today*.

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

and why do you feel to make this point over and over? GPL has nothing to do with copyright reform. GPL is a "solution" to a problem created by american (since stallman is american, you're welcome everyone) copyright law. If american copyright law had been written by Richard Falkvinge the GPL had been worded differently in order to address any problems with that particular subset of laws (or lack of) required to attain the goal of free software.

I don't think anyone has ever (ok, that's a blatant lie - Microsoft at least prefers people using their stuff for free) argued that "free" software as in propriatary software "liberated" through force or trechery, aka "warez", is something anyone given sufficently advanced alternatives would or should want. "Free software", as in FOSS, is something everyone (except rent seekers and monopol seeker ofc) ought to want as it at the very least sets a bar which other "freeware", "adware", "trialware", "badge-ware" etc. should surpass. Pirates know this, pirates just don't care. Pirates do it for lulz and bits of eight.

There is little overlap between outright pirate supporters and FOSS users/developers and your "point" is a red herring trying to get FOSS "people" onto the "we need stricter copyright laws" bandwagon (pirates don't care, the "entertainment industry" are already trying to extend copyrights until forever, so who else are you trying to convince?). In fact, GPL would not suffer from copyrighted materials entering the public domain sooner, which is a common suggesion since "certain intrests" moved the goalpost on that particular subject.

so to counter your "Without copyright laws, the GPL is powerless." I'd argue that "even with copyright reform, GPL is still useful".

Re:GPL

[CrystalFalcon]

The GPL is intentionally written to match the strength of the copyright monopoly. If the copyright monopoly strengthens, so does the GPL. If it weakens, so does the GPL, too.

In the case of an abolished copyright monopoly, the GPL is also effectively abolished, but this is by its original design.

Re:GPL

[dido]

Some years ago, Richard Stallman would have supported that idea. But now, with the changes in the world lately, he sings a rather different tune. There's that pesky distinction between source and object code to think about and the fact that the copyright licenses for Free Software are also used as a defense against software patents.

Re:GPL

[hitmark]

I think there is a statement by RMS somewhere, claiming that the GPL could be done without copyright. But that copyright makes it easier, as it provided as foundation. I suspect that something equivalent of GPL could be done via contract law.

Re:GPL

[AK Marc]

And many supporters of the GPL would rather have no copyright than what we have now. The GPL would never have existed if copyright didn't. Yes, it'll lose its teeth if copyright is abolished, but it won't matter. Abolish copyright. Make DRM illegal, and there would be no need for the GPL. Reverse engineer anything you need from their released binaries. And many programs are source code (Perl scripts and such), in which case the GPL would be strictly enforced by the abolition of copyright.

Re:GPL

[drsmithy]

So? If you get rid of copyright, the GPL would have no purpose anyway. Like, in a good way.

Er, no.

The purpose of the GPL is to ensure the ongoing distribution of source code licensed under it and any other code derived thereof.

If you take Copyright away, the the GPL can no longer achieve this. That doesn't mean the _requirement_ to do so has disappeared, however.

Or, to use an example, Red Hat would no longer be required to provide the source code for their Linux distribution. Sure, you could copy the binaries far and wide - but if you wanted to see what their custom kernel patches were, you wouldn't be able to.

Re:GPL

[SteveFoerster]

Fuck, that's true. Fair enough. This is what I get for being active with open content rather than code.

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Except you won't have any source code. They just won't release it.

Re:GPL

[wolrahnaes]

In a native code environment, decompiling usually results in something with the appearance and syntax of whatever language you're decompiling to, but with a structure more like assembly. VM environments like Java or .net can be decompiled in to something that much more closely resembles the original code, but still isn't the same.

In either case, comments are gone, some structure is bound to be mangled, and function and variable names are meaningless unless by a stroke of luck debugging features were left on during compilation.

You are correct that decompilation does provide some level of insight in to the code and on paper you should be able to compile it back for functionally identical code (given appropriate libraries) AND in such a legal environment it would be completely OK to distribute modified versions. Unfortunately the explicit purpose of the GPL is to require continued redistribution of the source of any variants of said code you may distribute. Without copyright law you'd be free to take GPL code and use it in commercial software without giving back. Even if you can decompile it and try to reverse engineer the changes it's not comparable to being able to require modified code be released.

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

if it means getting rid of the draconian copyright laws that stupid governments and companies haven't realized dont work then good who cares about the GPL if there is no copyright?

Besides, the consitutionality of current copyright laws is questionable! The current laws certainly aren't what the initial Copyright laws were intended to do. They were meant to give limited rights for a limited time to allow originators of a work time to make a profit. They were not intended to give almost unlimited and unending rights to the copyright owners.

While ending Copyright completely isn't the best idea, keeping DMCA-like laws in effect is a bad idea!

Re:GPL

[eyegone]

I, for one, welcome our copyright-replacing hardware dongle overlords!

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the problem. The article gets it fairly spot on but does highlight the two relevant points for copyright
1. To give credit where credit is due
2. To prevent (wholesale) plagiarism.

These are also the only relevant points FOR copyright, of which both of these can be addressed with contract law in exactly the same way Microsoft and FOSS software do now.

For point #1. Most people give credit where credit is due, and a few people are just think too highly of themselves and will strip credits and copyrights from open software and sell it as their own. If there was no copyright, the best version of the software would win out, and nobody would give a damn about all the different private forks of software. The purpose of copyright in this manner is to say "This was created originally by X at Y date, visit my website for the latest version" this works for software, but not for artwork, music or anything that metadata can't be preserved in transition between print and electronic data. For Artwork, a QR code could be placed in a corner with a name, or more stealthy hidden in the artwork if needed. But that's just potentially damages the arts purpose or value.
For point #2. The internet, business, educational systems frown and shame people who plagiarise other peoples work. No copyright law is needed to do this, however without a law in place, there is no dividing line between fair use/remix, and wholesale copying.

Do we need the laws? Not really. Just like we don't need laws against murder. We don't need them, the average person is not going to take the lack of a law as a licence to murder everyone because like in point 2, society will shame or go completely vigilante on those who commit immoral acts.

Immoral acts also include the act of stealing, just the penalty for virtual theft is virtual shame. One also needs to make the distinction between virtual property (DLC content, music, etc) that can be copied without ever being "stolen", and fictional virtual property(wow items, farmville stuff, etc.) that can be stolen, but not copied, with no physical harm to the property owner. Then you also have a fictional act of stealing and murder(MMO games) which unlike reality, has no real penalty outside the context of the game except for maybe some financial value or time lost.

This is why laws like SOPA are bad. Because they are written so poorly that without an "idiot law" to tell people they are not to murder and steal from each other or from physical and virtual stores, the omission of specifics appears to grant permission do to the activity of omission.

So say all our copyright law was reduced to two sentences
1. Thou shalt not appropriate property, real, virtual, fictional or otherwise that has a contract of ownership.
2. Property without a contract of ownership, or Property with an ownership contract stipulating permissive appropriation, must be considered lawful to reproduce, transmit, digitize, store and archive regardless of any perceived value and will not be revoked provided the original contract is attached..

Or in otherwords anything without an implied licence assumes a PD/BSD-like licence unless a another licence is given. Anything released since 1980 already does this more or less. No ownership monopoly is given at all, no penalties are imposed for violating the contract. It's simply "don't strip credits out so that we can always go to the source to obtain the original version by the original author." Stealing remains stealing, but you can't steal what was duplicated already.

Re:GPL

[bonch]

Source access is the primary point of the GPL's existence. Without the GPL, companies could use GPL code in commercial products without giving you access to source changes.

Re:GPL

[bonch]

I'm not trying to get anyone onto any bandwagon. I'm merely pointing out that the GPL copyrights code in such a way that users are guaranteed access to source, and without copyright law, the GPL can no longer legally enforce that guarantee. You would no longer be legally guaranteed access to Red Hat's kernel changes or the code to some commercial utility based on open source.

Re:GPL

[martin-boundary]

Of course I can have source code. In a world where it's not illegal to make a copy of anything, any employee who has access to it can make a legal copy if they wish. Even a janitor could do it. Or a customer who has access to "shared source". A world without copyright is *very* different from our world.

Re:GPL

[drsmithy]

Powerless to do what exactly?

Powerless to maintain access to source code and derivatives. That is to say, the whole reason it exists in the first place.

Think about the reasons you might prefer the GPL to the BSDL. Because without Copyright, those are the things the GPL can no longer do.

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Without copyright laws, the GPL is powerless.

Great, let us get rid of two problems at the same time.

Re:GPL

[bky1701]

You keep saying it. It keeps being inaccurate. I will not go into great depth as I already have several times and you choose to ignore what I say. However, I will summarize for the benefit of others.

Using the GPL does not mean you support copyright as an idea, or support the GPL as an end. Using and supporting the GPL only requires that you think it is currently the best option. Using copyright to remove powers from other copyright holders (and by releasing what you create into the public domain, you are simply feeding them) does not imply any sort of conflict of interest or lack of coherency. It simply means you are being pragmatic.

Copyright will not be abolished or even lessened any time soon; it is going to get worse before it gets better. Until that changes, the GPL is going to be posed as an option as how to try to regain some semblance of sanity. It does not matter if you, Linus, Stallman, etc. seek to apply it that way or not, some people will, and I am behind it. Those you complain about are also behind it. The fact you cannot see that other people might have more nuanced views of the matter than seeing copyright as an end, seeing the GPL as an end, or seeing abolition as an end, and simply acting in the most impulsive way towards whatever end they choose, is not a problem with those you complain about: it is a problem with you.

Re:GPL

[KiloByte]

Quarter a decade ago decompilers were quite popular. There's little point in developing them today, though, due to rampant copyright -- you won't be able to use whatever semi-source you recovered due to oppressive laws.

If we got rid of copyright, though, you can bet any not thoroughly obfuscated code that's useful would be immediately decompiled and cleaned up by someone. And thoroughly obfuscated pieces would be merely considered a challenge by some of us.

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

If you get rid of copyright, I will be allowed to take RMS's precious GPL software, make some changes, and release the resulting binary blob without sharing the modified source code. Somehow I don't think RMS would like that.

Re:GPL

[Wootery]

Wrong. Just because there's no copyright law stopping the employee releasing the source, there's still his employer's orders.

If I hire you to write a closed-source program for me, and you write the program but then release the source code, even if there's no copyright law making this specifically illegal, you've still failed to fulfil your contract.

And of course a janitor couldn't. He wouldn't have access to a protected codebase, and would probably be fired for screwing around with company computers.

You also seem not to grasp the difference between copyleft and copycenter. A world without copyright would approximate the latter, most decidedly not the former.

(This said, IANAL or anything.)

Re:GPL

[Ash Vince]

So? If you get rid of copyright, the GPL would have no purpose anyway. Like, in a good way.

That is utter crap.

The purpose of the GPL is to try and force companies who use open source software in their products to make any additions they make for the benefit of their customers also available back to the open source community.

Without copyright law and the GPL my company could take an open source product and use it to build a closed source product that we never published the source code for. I could then simply protect our version of the source using an NDA that all staff had to sign before they came to work for me. I can then concentrate on porting any changes made to the open source version into our version but the open source version would not get access to any improvements we made.

The GPL is not about getting software for free, it is about developers always having the ability to edit source code of software they use. It came about because Richard Stallman was once denied access to the source code of a printer driver he wanted to modify to suit his labs peculiar need. He had no problem paying for the printer driver, he just needed to change it from way it was originally designed to work.

Without copyright law, companies would still be able to keep their source code hidden from everyone else by simply not ever letting it out the door.

Re:GPL

[Ash Vince]

well, without the copyright, you also wouldn't need the GPL, right? you would be free to decompile, copy, distribute whatever source you want. right? anything you release, anyone else could use.

decompile? Try looking at decompiled C++ code some time and making some functional changes. Making large functional changes to a piece of software purely by decompiling it from compiled binaries would be a nightmare. No decompiler I know of produces C code I would ever want to look at and be forced to work on.

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering some code I work with, It must simplier to decompile the binary and try to understand that, instead of the code checked in into version-control.

Re:GPL

[AmiMoJo]

You need copyright to force companies to release modifications for GPL software. Otherwise they can make it proprietary and there is nothing you can do.

Re:GPL

[Hatta]

That's OK. The GPL is not the end, the end is ensuring our software freedoms. There's no reason in principle that we couldn't grant those rights explicitly by statute, if we're going to be legislating anyway.

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

I can take the current build's freely available source code, then make some super awesome modifications to it, and redistribute my fork without ever disclosing my modified source code.

This means among other things:
I can add a back door to my version that "the community" will not be able to see via code revies
I can add features and not tell anyone how I did it or how to use them (pay me to build a custum interface for your use case, or spend lots reverse engineering my addons)
I can add patented code, without making it clear what portions are patented and let you deal with whoever holds the patents if you choose to use it.

All of those things are prohibited under GPL, but would be fair game if copyright law didn't exist.

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

you know there's nothing preventing the imaginary "GPL 4.1" from adressing that by (quick and dirty solution, not a lawyer) require you to send a signed electronic document to FSF (or something, as long as it's not the patent office) which would be a binding legal contract to continue sharing the code. Then if Red Hat stopped providing code, they'd be in breach of the equaly legalbinding contract. Which by the way could be worded to prevent Red Hat's current obfuscating shenanigans.

GPL is the means to and end, not the goal in itself. If, in an alternative universe, copyrights were abolished, people would find a way through other constructs.

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Except no, you won't have the source code. It's fine to dream about it but in the real world you'd need copyright for the GPL to function.

Re:GPL

[operagost]

What would you replace copyright with?

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!

Why is this so hard for people to understand? The point of the GPL is not to get around copyright; it's to get around compilation. Without copyright law, I could take the source code of someone who wants their program distributed as widely as possible, make some changes to it, then send the compiled version out without the source code. I could lock down a program in a way that was never intended by the original author of that program. The GPL gives the author a legal option to prevent me from doing that.

Re:GPL

[V for Vendetta]

If I hire you to write a closed-source program for me, and you write the program but then release the source code, even if there's no copyright law making this specifically illegal, you've still failed to fulfil your contract.

IANAL, therefore the question is: is such a contract still enforcable then? We all know you can put lots of illegal stuff in EULAs/ToS/contratcs. Just because it's written there, doesn't necessarily mean it can be uphold in court.

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't know what GPL means. It doesn't mean at all that you're free to do whatever you want. It means you can do what you want, as long as you release the result under a compatible license!

Re:GPL

[Digital Vomit]

This wouldn't be a problem if it were also illegal to distribute binaries without the corresponding source code (which should be law, IMO, given the prevalence of computers and the danger that malicious code can do).

So, no copyright and enforced source code distribution. It's win-win for human civilization.

Re:GPL

[SteveFoerster]

Freedom.

Re:GPL

[abhi_beckert]

Without copyright law and the GPL my company could take an open source product and use it to build a closed source product that we never published the source code for. I could then simply protect our version of the source using an NDA that all staff had to sign before they came to work for me. I can then concentrate on porting any changes made to the open source version into our version but the open source version would not get access to any improvements we made.

So you prefer the opposite, where the somebody simply chooses not to use your code at all and you still don't get access to any improvements?

I've written a lot of GPL'd code. These days, I prefer public domain (or as close as I can get). I like it when other people get benefit from my work, whether they choose to share it or not. Often they do choose to share it.

PS: Why do you focus so much on companies? GPL applies to everyone, whether they work for a company or not. I'm not a company, and several times GPL has prevented me from doing things I wanted to do.

Re:GPL

[martin-boundary]

If I hire you to write a closed-source program for me, and you write the program but then release the source code, even if there's no copyright law making this specifically illegal, you've still failed to fulfil your contract.

How would that work? If it's not illegal for an employee to copy the source, then every employee with access may have made a copy. How would you prove which employee released it, and assuming you could, how would you prove that particular employee actually released it himself instead of someone else making a legal copy from his copy with/without his knowledge?

And if you threaten employees, who all have your source, what do you think will happen, legally, if you fire any or all of them, or fail to pay them for their work?

As to the janitor, supposing your source is "very valuable" (which is debatable - most source isn't that valuable), he might not care about getting fired if he knows someone who will "buy" a legal copy of the source. He might even take the job just for that reason. If this sounds like spying/stealing, it's not in a world where copying anything is legal.

The final outcome of these ideas is that, in a world where copying anything is legal, most source won't be kept secret, because enforcing enough physical security to prevent the code from leaking would be *much* more expensive than the code is worth (ie Pentagon like security). And *that* ultimately means, for most code, one could just ask for the source from someone who has access to it, no hassles.

You also seem not to grasp the difference between copyleft and copycenter. A world without copyright would approximate the latter, most decidedly not the former.

No it wouldn't. The reason BSD type licenses are exploitable by unscrupulous companies is precisely because copyright exists: copyright prevents *us* from taking *their* modifications back into the community. Without copyright, we just take a copy of their modified source, legally, for the same reasons as above.

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Without copyright law and the GPL my company could take an open source product and use it to build a closed source product that we never published the source code for. I could then simply protect our version of the source using an NDA that all staff had to sign before they came to work for me. I can then concentrate on porting any changes made to the open source version into our version but the open source version would not get access to any improvements we made.

You're forgetting one thing. There is no copyright. So somebody can just take your binary and documentation, and sell it along with all your "exclusive" features. Now you're competing purely on your ability to support the product. Some would argue that's better anyway. Non-existence of copyright would have numerous, complicated consequences beyond what we can speculate here. Your hypothetical scenario is naive and self-contradictory.

Re:GPL

[Kalriath]

Without copyright there's no protection against someone reverse engineering something licensed under "GPL Contract" and then locking it up tight and reselling it. Actually, there would be nothing preventing someone taking the GPL source code alone - after all, they don't need to actually agree to the contract to get a copy of the code - and then locking it up and selling it.

No, GPL needs copyright.

Re:GPL

[Kalriath]

Of course it is. Why would you even ask that? Like a Non-Disclosure Agreement, it's merely a contract saying "I agree that I will not release this otherwise perfectly legal information to a third party". Actually, no, it would be a Non-Disclosure Agreement. And those are held up all the time - much to the detriment of the victim.

It would also still be protected by Trade Secret laws regardless, and frankly Trade Secret laws are even more frightening than Copyright laws.

Re:GPL

[Kalriath]

Obfuscating shenanigans? My understanding is that Red Hat distributes RHEL source to the people who received it off them directly - as is their obligation under GPL, only provides support for it on servers for which a support contract fee has been paid - as is their right under GPL, and does not allow anyone who distributes RHEL to use the Red Hat trademarks - as is their right under law I don't see any shenanigans there.

Re:GPL

[Ash Vince]

So you prefer the opposite, where the somebody simply chooses not to use your code at all and you still don't get access to any improvements?

Personally, I do not care either way. All the code I write is at work and I work for a closed source shop. On the odd occasion I write something in my own time so I own the copyright not my boss, I am quite happy to give it away into the public domain as well.

I was explaining some history of the GPL and why it came about, not entering into a discussion about which licence is better. Please do not take my post to be in any great praise for the GPL over the BSD license or true public domain as that is certainly not what I intended.

PS: Why do you focus so much on companies? GPL applies to everyone, whether they work for a company or not. I'm not a company, and several times GPL has prevented me from doing things I wanted to do.

Whenever I hear about blatant GPL violations they are almost always companies doing the violating to save a bit of cash.

Re:GPL

[Ash Vince]

Non-existence of copyright would have numerous, complicated consequences beyond what we can speculate here. Your hypothetical scenario is naive and self-contradictory.

Yup, fair point.

Re:GPL

[shnull]

so why not do away with all of it then, and while you're at it do away with the lawtrolls and the fossil congressmen as well, save the world some trouble before us of a becomes public enemy number one worldwide with their o so sympathetic behaviour

GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

As if it's not already powerless.

Wrong

[Shakrai]

Copyright laws are to preserve the right of copying the work for the copyright holder.

The point of copyrights (and patents) is to promote the progress of science and the useful arts by securing for a limited time the exclusive right to use the work(s) to the person(s) who created them as they see fit.

Re:Wrong

[The End Of Days]

It is a limited time. Pirate people just seem to want that limit to be about zero seconds, producers want as much as possible. Obviously both sides are foaming retards who shouldn't get what they want.

Re:Wrong

[FlyingGuy]

Good grief who mod'd this insightful and Informative.

it is in point of fact redundant to the post they are commenting on.

If I am the copyright holder of a work, then it is my right to distribute, not distribute, charge outrageous prices for, give away for free or use the manuscript to wipe my if I so choose and no one else's for the term of the copyright.

In the case of a patent then it is my right to manufacture, not manufacture, charge outrageous license fee's, charge no license fee, give away as I so choose and no one else's for the term of the patent.

The tradeoff is that after such term of patent or copyright has expired, then and only then can someone else, in point of fact anyone else, do what they like with it.

Do I like what copyright has been perverted into? emphatically NO Do I like that your can be granted a patent for a business process, once again emphatically NO! Do I like the the fact that you can patent software, yet again emphatically NO!

Is it the law of the land? Emphatically YES! Do I write and e-mail my senators and my congressman making sound and reasoned arguments to get this changed, once again emphatically YES!

Does this do anything towards correcting this abomination? Not so far. Will I keep trying, yes.

Re:Wrong

[Dahamma]

It might be a "limited time" if they didn't keep extending it whenever the material of large companies starts to get close said limit. I'm pretty sure the Founding Fathers didn't put this provision in the Constitution so that Mickey Mouse was still "a protected work of art" 200 years from now...

Re:Wrong

[drsmithy]

It is a limited time. Pirate people just seem to want that limit to be about zero seconds, producers want as much as possible. Obviously both sides are foaming retards who shouldn't get what they want.

Timeframes measured in single-digit years would be a good start. Ideally it would be inversely related to the popularity of the work (so more popular works went out of copyright sooner). It also shouldn't persist past the death of the copyright holder.

Re:Wrong

[unity100]

all the grandstanding bold wordage in your post, pales in the face of the fact that your senator and congressman doesnt give two shits about what you think.

they wont change anything. even if 99,999% of the society wants it. and there is no way to elect those who will change it. as evidenced by how the very basic first rule of the modern society, habeas corpus - that was there since magna carta - has gone to cinders with the recent legislation those people have produced. let me stress this again :

they dont give shit about what you think and they wont change that law of the land. and you cant elect or be elected without being filthy rich. only 1-3% of society is filthy rich. system works for them regardless of what you desire or wish

Re:Wrong

[Nemyst]

It is for a limited time, but just for a limited time.

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Wishing for an "Idealistic and naive" up/downmod (net 0)

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not a limited time by any real definition since the person to whom it is granted can never see it expire. The limited times wording is referring to the grant to the creator so it really should be some fixed time less than the likely life of an author. Any other reading of the intent doesn't seem to encourage further works by successful artists, which would be more valuable than any number of first attempts by your average person. I guess that's just like my opinion though man, since the courts seem to have read it more broadly.

Re:Wrong

[norpy]

That gives incentive for pirates to kill successful artists.

Of course that would create bodyguard jobs!

Re:Wrong

[walshy007]

It also shouldn't persist past the death of the copyright holder.

I agree with single digit years, hell I'd even maybe agree with 15, but death should have nothing to do with whether it goes into public domain, if a man dies a year after he publishes a work, it should still have copyright. If it didn't that would give people motive to murder others.

Re:Wrong

[drsmithy]

That gives incentive for pirates to kill successful artists.

Right. Because obviously there's a tidal wave of people ready to commit pre-meditated murder, but for their fear of prosecution for Copyright infringement.

Re:Wrong

[drsmithy]

If it didn't that would give people motive to murder others.

Right. Because obviously someone prepared to commit pre-meditated murder would shy away from Copyright infringement.

Re:Wrong

[The End Of Days]

I'm pretty sure the founding father's opinions on pretty much everything in modern society would have been "HOLY SHIT, DID WE DO THIS?"

Re:Wrong

[Grishnakh]

The problem with this is that many copyright holders are corporations, and it's rather rare that they die.

My personal idea is that companies should be able to pay for copyright protection. There should be 5 years for free, but after that, you have to pay a fee with the government to register your work and extend the copyright for another 5 years, perhaps $100 or $1000. Companies should be allowed to extend their copyright protection in perpetuity if they desire, but the fees should go up greatly every 5-year term, so 15 years costs $10k, 20 years costs $100k, 25 years $1M, 30 years $10M, ... 55 years for $1 trillion. Obviously, at some point the fees will be so great they'll outweigh whatever profits the company continues to squeeze out of the work, so in reality the work will fall into the public domain before long, though highly profitable works will stay protected for longer. Works that flop will be available to the public after only 5 years, most others maybe a decade or two at the most.

Also, the government will get money from all these fees, reducing its need to tax citizens directly. The only problem with this scheme is that the government prefers to take money from copyright-holding corporations in the form of bags of money under the table that go directly to legislators' bank accounts in exchange for bad copyright laws, so my idea is unlikely to be implemented.

Re:Wrong

[Rennt]

You might have that backwards. If death meant copyright would transfered, the author's family (or whoever it was left to) now have a motive for murder. If copyright passes to public domain there is no way to profit from the authors death.

Re:Wrong

[drsmithy]

Obviously, at some point the fees will be so great they'll outweigh whatever profits the company continues to squeeze out of the work, so in reality the work will fall into the public domain before long, though highly profitable works will stay protected for longer.

This is backwards. Highly profitable works should fall out of Copyright sooner, rather than later. The (supposed) objective of Copyright is to incentivise more creation. Where's the incentive to create a new work while the existing one is still earning bucketloads of cash ?

Re:Wrong

[metacell]

Too complicated - remember that every single snippet of text you write is copyright protected. Not only the fees, but the bureaucracy would become excessive for small businesses, such as bands, advertising agencies and writing workshops.

The fees would also become ridiculously high for those who produce a large number of smaller works, such as greeting cards and clip art.

Keep it simple.

Re:Wrong

[JasterBobaMereel]

Copyright is to encourage an artist to produce more of the same .... which they cannot do after they die, so why are we still paying them?

I work, I get paid, I don't expect to continue to get paid for years afterwards for work I have already been paid for, I don't expect my children to get paid for work I did ...why do "artists" (read Media companies)

Re:Wrong

[delinear]

Not if it meant being able to legally download a copy of the movie, no. If, on the other hand, you had a factory ready to roll out copies of their movie to hit the holiday season market and make you a tidy few million, that's suddenly a bigger incentive for the rights holder to suffer a little accident. Still ridiculous reasoning, it's like abolishing the right of inheritance because that's an incentive to murder (and honestly that is a bigger incentive to murder) - you don't throw out something that's massively beneficial to the majority of society because of one or two nutjobs.

Re:Wrong

[Ash Vince]

It also shouldn't persist past the death of the copyright holder.

Nice idea in La La land, but here in the real world people often band together to create something together. In this case who had to die for the copyright to enter the public domain? All of them? Or any one of them?

Re:Wrong

[heathen_01]

Fine, you can have your single-digit year, but I get to choose the base.

Re:Wrong

[tbannist]

All of them would be the obvious answer. I have to agree though, I don't think the term should end at the author's death if it is a short, fixed term. Make it 7 years, with a single optional (ie. paid-for) 7 year extension. If I remember correctly, according to the economic analysis, that accounts for 98% of the revenues accrued by a typical work (there was an article about this on Slashdot not so long ago).

Re:Wrong

[smitty777]

Hmmmm...so now you're motivating me to make/copyright something so that it will be *less* successful so I can keep my copyright?

Re:Wrong

[Grishnakh]

"smitty777" has the right idea.
The incentive is for you to try to create something that will earn bucketloads of cash, so that it'll be worth it for you to keep renewing the copyright term over and over.

Besides, if you had variable copyright durations, why would anyone pay more money to keep it protected longer if it weren't profitable? Or, if you don't base it on fees, how do you determine which works are more profitable and which aren't? The owners can do this easily, but the government? You want to create another giant government agency like the IRS, just to go around and figure out how much money every copyright holder is making from every copyrighted work, just so they can cut short the copyright term on profitable works and give free extensions to everything that isn't? We really need to have government agents asking me about every 3-line shell script I wrote and finding out how much money I made from it (zero) so it can be afforded the maximum copyright protection? That makes zero sense. With my idea, the policing is mostly eliminated altogether, and the copyright owners have to do all the work (determining how profitable it is), plus the copyright office gets to make money off the highly-profitable works.

Anyway, as I said before, the incentive is to try to create something that does earn bucketloads of cash, so that it's worth it for you to extend the term. As I pointed out before, the first few extensions could be relatively cheap. What $1 million in fees for something as profitable as Avatar? A drop in the bucket, but it's a big bundle of money for funding a government agency without having to get it from the general fund. Everyone wants to create a highly profitable work, but most people (and companies) try and fail. Some corporation spent a bucketload of money creating "Gigli" for instance. Almost everyone agrees it's crap, however, so why should it get any protection beyond the 5-year minimum, and with my scheme, the copyright holder probably wouldn't even bother extending it (they might pony up for the first 5-year extension since it's so cheap, but that's it).

My scheme is all about balancing the goals of rightsholders (the big evil corporations that want to keep Steamboat Willie copyrighted forever, and give bucketloads of cash to our legislators in exchange for such legislation), and the general public who'd like to see more stuff fall into the public domain faster. Why should some 80s video game whose copyright holder can't even be found any more be illegal to copy for the next 60+ years, just because some corporations want to protect a small number of items that they're still making money on? In 60 years, unless some people have flouted the law and kept archived copies of that "abandonware" game or traded them illicitly online, that game will be lost forever. But "Steamboat Willie" isn't going to be lost forever because Disney is very careful to preserve it, and will spend whatever it takes to do so. Let the unprofitable stuff go into the PD fast so that interested people can archive it, learn from it, etc., and if some company really wants to protect something that's a cash cow, let them do so while paying hefty fees for the privilege. This way we won't lose very much over time, and we'll have a much richer public domain.

Re:Wrong

[Grishnakh]

Too complicated - remember that every single snippet of text you write is copyright protected.

Maybe I didn't make this clear in my prior post, but my idea was that everything got a 5-year term by default. You don't have to register it at all, just be able to prove when you made it if it becomes contested in court. I'm not exactly sure of all the mechanics of how things work now, but this should work exactly the same as whatever we're doing now, except that you only get 5 years instead of the ridiculous term you get now. After all, copyright holders wanting registered copyrights have to register their works with the government, do they not?

Not only the fees, but the bureaucracy would become excessive for small businesses, such as bands, advertising agencies and writing workshops.

As I said before, you don't have to register anything, though as with today, you need to keep good notes to be able to prove when you wrote or published something. I dunno, maybe we could base the 5-year term off the date of original publication (when the book is released for sale, when you upload it to a public website, etc.) to make things easier.

But the fees only come into play if you want more than 5 years. Unless you're actually continuing to make money on something, this shouldn't be a factor at all; you just allow it to fall into PD. If you're making a bunch of money on something after 5 years, then what's $1k in fees? How many works still make money after that time?

The fees would also become ridiculously high for those who produce a large number of smaller works, such as greeting cards and clip art.

How many people are still making money on greeting cards and clip art after 5 years? Greeting cards change every few months; when was the last time you went shopping for greeting cards and saw a card that was exactly the same as one you saw for the past 5 years, or even 1 year?

Keep it simple.

That's exactly what I've done; the only people who are going to spend a bunch of money on renewal fees are those still making a bunch of money on their work. Under my scheme, Metallica will pony up the cash to keep Master of Puppets copyright-protected for several more terms (until the fees become prohibitively high even for them, with my geometrically-increasing fees), while your local band that makes an album that flops might renew for a single term (I proposed a fairly cheap fee for the first extension), or probably not even bother if it's totally forgotten after 5 years.

Also, my scheme isn't set in stone; it'd probably make sense to have different fees for different types of work, or some rules stating how the fees apply. For instance, should Metallica pay $10M in renewal fees for the whole album Master of Puppets, or should it be $10M per song off the album (that album's getting pretty old now, so it qualifies for big fees)? There should probably be some different fees and rules for different types of work, since it doesn't really make sense that a single song should cost as much to renew as a blockbuster movie, or a popular greeting card for that matter.

Re:Wrong

[Fned]

That gives incentive for pirates to kill successful artists.

Right. Because obviously there's a tidal wave of people ready to commit pre-meditated murder, but for their fear of prosecution for Copyright infringement.

No, silly, not people.

Corporations.

Re:Wrong

[walshy007]

Family has less incentive to murder than people who have printing presses lined up ready to make a cool few million from mass production who have never met the guy.

Re:Wrong

[walshy007]

The benefits compared to now would already be mostly being realised through the lower copyright lengths. The differences between three years vs five mean little to the public compared to five vs 70 after death.

Re:Wrong

[brit74]

> "It also shouldn't persist past the death of the copyright holder."

I disagree with that. If an author writes a book and dies, I fully support that money going to the widow or family of that author. (Although, not for decades and decades past the author's death.) Afterall, imagine a guy spending years writing a book in an effort to support his family, then just before it is published, he dies. Now his family gets none of the revenue from that book?

Re:Wrong

[drsmithy]

I disagree with that. If an author writes a book and dies, I fully support that money going to the widow or family of that author.

If a regular old blue or white-collar worker dies, do you fully support their employer having to pay a continuing wage to their widow or family ?

(Although, not for decades and decades past the author's death.) Afterall, imagine a guy spending years writing a book in an effort to support his family, then just before it is published, he dies. Now his family gets none of the revenue from that book?

How is this different to anyone else ?

Re:Wrong

[Kalriath]

A regular old white or blue collar worker didn't work for $0 for months or years. You guys need to stop using salaried/wage workers, who get paid week by week or month by month to do their job, with creative artists, who receive no income while they work on their project.

In other words, it's very different. Quit being disingenuous.

(You must really hate Peter Pan by the way, the only work I know of with a literally permanent copyright term - even if the reason is simply because the author decreed that the royalties be gifted to a children's hospital).

Re:Wrong

[wvmarle]

Not true. Look at China. As you all know there's a lot of piracy going on there: and you know what? It's because there is money in it, big money. You could almost argue that China is an example on what would happen if there is no copyright law (China has copyright laws, they're just not enforced).

So there surely is a motive for killing an artist if that puts the work in the public domain. It means that you now suddenly can produce and sell say DVDs of that artist's movies, without any repercussions. Everyone else can do that too but the market is big enough for multiple players to make a profit.

Re:Wrong

[metacell]

Well, I see your point. Five years should be enough for most minor works. The bureaucracy would only increase for those few works who are profitable after five years.

Re:Wrong

[drsmithy]

Nice idea in La La land, but here in the real world people often band together to create something together. In this case who had to die for the copyright to enter the public domain? All of them? Or any one of them?

All of them would be the most obvious conclusion.

Re:Wrong

[drsmithy]

A regular old white or blue collar worker didn't work for $0 for months or years. You guys need to stop using salaried/wage workers, who get paid week by week or month by month to do their job, with creative artists, who receive no income while they work on their project.

So a bit like, say, going to University before starting a salaried job ?

(You must really hate Peter Pan by the way, the only work I know of with a literally permanent copyright term - even if the reason is simply because the author decreed that the royalties be gifted to a children's hospital).

It does sound like an excellent example of how Copyright could be abused.

Re:Wrong

[drsmithy]

Hmmmm...so now you're motivating me to make/copyright something so that it will be *less* successful so I can keep my copyright?

If you valued maintaining your copyright over more money, that would be your choice.

In reality, however, the popularity of a work is rarely something the creator can engineer. It is determined by his audience.

Re:Wrong

[drsmithy]

I guess that's why we have such a huge problem with corporations killing rich people and stealing all their stuff.

Re:Wrong

[drsmithy]

The incentive is for you to try to create something that will earn bucketloads of cash, so that it'll be worth it for you to keep renewing the copyright term over and over.

No.

The incentive of Copyright is (ostensibly) to maximise the volume of new works created. Where is the incentive to create more works if you've made one so profitable it will support you for the rest of your life ? Where's the payback to society from the privilege extended to the creator ?

We really need to have government agents asking me about every 3-line shell script I wrote and finding out how much money I made from it (zero) so it can be afforded the maximum copyright protection?

This highlights another problem, which is that Copyright for the purposes of commercial protection is opt-out, when it should be opt-in, like patents.

The only Copyright that should be automatic (and perpetual) is the moral right of attribution.

Re:Wrong

[Grishnakh]

The incentive of Copyright is (ostensibly) to maximise the volume of new works created. Where is the incentive to create more works if you've made one so profitable it will support you for the rest of your life ?

That's simple: the fact that most people who try to create super-profitable works utterly fail, and they'll keep trying until they do, or at least keep making more works that are profitable enough to make a living on.

Do you really think it's that simple to create highly profitable works? If it was that easy, why would anyone work a regular job?

Re:Wrong

[smitty777]

What you're saying is true. ...but in your own words, "the purpose of copyrighting is to incentivize more creation." The entire purpose of copyrighting is to protect your intellectual property/ideas/designs in order to keep others from using them, right? Why would I want this type of protection? 1) to keep others from using it for financial gain (i.e., it would cut into my profit margin), and/or 2) to be recognized as the intellectual origin of the artifact.

If I were only interested in spreading knowledge for the benefit of mankind, I would just release my product into the wild without a copyright, as has been done numerous times. Take something like a free CSS template on the web - the terms of use are something like "just give us credit for creating this".

Re:Wrong

[drsmithy]

That's simple: the fact that most people who try to create super-profitable works utterly fail, and they'll keep trying until they do, or at least keep making more works that are profitable enough to make a living on.

No, that's a different situation. It doesn't address the question of why a very profitable work should remain in Copyright for a long time, thus giving a disincentive for creating any more.

Do you really think it's that simple to create highly profitable works?

I think it's at least as much a matter of luck as planning.

Re:Wrong

[drsmithy]

What you're saying is true. ...but in your own words, "the purpose of copyrighting is to incentivize more creation." The entire purpose of copyrighting is to protect your intellectual property/ideas/designs in order to keep others from using them, right? Why would I want this type of protection? 1) to keep others from using it for financial gain (i.e., it would cut into my profit margin), and/or 2) to be recognized as the intellectual origin of the artifact.

Moral rights (ie: attribution) are a separate kettle of fish to commercial protection. I don't have any disagreement with them being automatic and perpetual.

Re:Wrong

[Grishnakh]

No, that's a different situation. It doesn't address the question of why a very profitable work should remain in Copyright for a long time, thus giving a disincentive for creating any more.

I've already answered this question over and over, you just don't like the answer.

If you give people a way of protecting a highly-profitable work for a long time, then they'll strive to create that highly-profitable work. They may or may not succeed (actually, it's most likely they'll fail, but that's OK, as they might very well produce lots of somewhat-profitable or moderately-profitable work in the process that enriches society). What's really more important is that they have some protection, for a limited time (as set forth by the Founders, not this lifetime+70 years BS), so that they can make a living on their work (while trying to make that highly-profitable work) instead of having to work as a barista all day to pay their rent, or worse not being an artist at all and going to work in some soul-sucking career so they can afford to have a decent home and family, and give up on art in the process.

The bit about super-profitable works being protected for a long time ("long" being relative) is just a side-effect of the gradient system I proposed, where the copyright holder is allowed to pay the government for longer protection terms if he chooses (which obviously would only be exercised with more-profitable works, the more profit, the longer they'll protect it, assuming it actually stays that profitable for that long, which really isn't a great assumption). Your focus on the "long time" for highly-profitable works is really a red herring anyway. In practice, how many works are "highly profitable" for decades after they're released? Gone with the Wind was probably highly profitable, and it's still probably profitable now, but how much? It's not like they show it in cinemas any more; even the most popular blockbusters get old after a while and the revenue they get from video sales/rentals(/online viewings) steadily goes down over time; with my proposal of greatly increasing the fees for each renewal period, at some point the profitability simply won't be enough to overcome the excessive fees, and the copyright holder will just let it lapse into the public domain.

The only reason I can imagine you're so against this is because you're an extremist who wants to eliminate all copyright altogether. My proposal is far better than the current system (which is ridiculously long, longer than the lifetime of the author); it gets most works out into the public domain in a very short time (5 years), which is much shorter even than the Founders put in the first copyright act back in the 1700s (which was 14 years IIRC). But then it gives those who want to make more money on copyrights, namely corporations who probably wouldn't exist without copyright law (like big movie studios), a way of extending the protection for those (relatively few) works they really want to keep their monopoly on, and which are profitable enough to justify the expense of the renewal fees. These fees, then, not only pay for the government copyright agency that oversees this, so that taxpayer funds don't have to be used, but there might very well be a surplus which can go to pay for other government operations, which has the effect of redistributing money from the very wealthy who profit off of copyright back to everyone else. The proposal seeks to balance everyone's interests, instead of just fucking over everyone whose livelihood depends on copyright, and a proposal something like mine is the only one likely to actually be adopted since it isn't so extremist.

I think it's at least as much a matter of luck as planning.

Irrelevant. No artist knows which of his works is going to be the next mega-hit, but if they don't bother trying, or they're too busy serving coffee, they're not going to create much. Besides, in the real world, most artists don't just quit when they make something that makes them rich; they keep making more because they like it and they want to keep up their reputation. Did Michael Jackson quit making music and dancing when he got rich from his first album or two? Nope, he kept going.

Re:Wrong

[drsmithy]

I've already answered this question over and over, you just don't like the answer.

No, you really haven't. You haven't identified why producing art is such an important endeavour that it deseves such incredibly generous legal protection. You also haven't explained why it's preferable for system ostensibly geared towards creating, advancing and spreading culture and science *for everyone* should be specifically geared towards the most important and influential works to be locked up for the longest periods of time.

The only reason I can imagine you're so against this is because you're an extremist who wants to eliminate all copyright altogether.

No, the fundamental disagreement we have is that I think the most popular and influential works should enter the public domain the quickest, so a) they can be freely built upon by others and b) the creator has an incentive to create more, because I believe the purpose of Copyright is to provide the largest benefit to society as a whole. You think that the most popular and influential works should be contained for as long as possible because you believe the purpose of Copyright is to enrich the individual as much as possible.

This basic difference in objective is why I disagree with your proposal.

I'm uncomfortable with Copyright (outside of moral rights) as a concept because it's arbitrary, goes against natural behaviour and appears to have no grounding in any sort of natural law. On top of that it's clearly quite easily manipulated by powerful interests to further their own agendas. I do, however, recognise that our current economic systems are deficient and rewarding certain types of creative workers (in particular, writers of books) and that Copyright - albeit vastly more limited than its current implementation - is a tolerable crutch for that.

But then it gives those who want to make more money on copyrights, namely corporations who probably wouldn't exist without copyright law (like big movie studios), a way of extending the protection for those (relatively few) works they really want to keep their monopoly on, and which are profitable enough to justify the expense of the renewal fees.

This is backwards. Corporations are the least in need of protection. A huge, billion-dollar-profit movie like Avatar could fund dozens of abject failures and hundreds of borderline break-even films.

There are plenty of avenues for large, organised corporations to make money from most types of creative work. Maybe not the kind of license-to-print-money results that they enjoy today, but certainly more than enough to be secure and profitable businesses.

Re:Wrong

[Grishnakh]

You haven't identified why producing art is such an important endeavour that it deseves such incredibly generous legal protection.

The founders thought it was important, so they specifically included in the Constitution. On top of that, every other industrialized country out there has similar systems. If you want to question that, then go ahead, but I have no desire to entertain a conversation about such a dumb topic. I'm only here to discuss how the system should be reworked to make it better, not to waste time with extremists. This whole thread started with you yourself proposing copyright terms in the single digits and saying unpopular works should get longer protection, not with extremist crap about abolishing copyright altogether, and my proposal was an answer to that, agreeing with the single-digit terms and countering on the unpopular works getting longer protection part.

No, the fundamental disagreement we have is that I think the most popular and influential works should enter the public domain the quickest,

So you think the government should track every single shell script someone writes, or every short story or poem an 8-year-old writes, so that the least profitable works can get longer protection even though they don't make any money? That's downright stupid. It'd make the bureaucracy seen in 1984 or Brazil (the movie) look small. The only way the government can extend variable protection terms to different works is to have them all registered. In my proposal, registering only the profitable stuff is easy, since no one would bother registering, and paying fees for extensions, for anything that wasn't making a lot of money, which is a minutely small fraction of the amount of copyrightable work out there. Everything else gets 5 years (with no registration required, just like today) and that's it. Are you honestly retarded enough to think the government should set up a new agency, many times the size of the IRS, just so it can track every single thing that people write? And who would pay for it all? The taxpayers? In my system, the people profiting off copyright are the ones paying for the bureaucracy that enables them to have additional protection for their profitable works, and the people(/companies) profiting the most are the ones who pay the most, just like any good progressive taxation scheme.

Re:Wrong

[drsmithy]

The founders thought it was important, so they specifically included in the Constitution. On top of that, every other industrialized country out there has similar systems. If you want to question that, then go ahead, but I have no desire to entertain a conversation about such a dumb topic.

Appeal to authority it is, then.

I'm only here to discuss how the system should be reworked to make it better, not to waste time with extremists. This whole thread started with you yourself proposing copyright terms in the single digits and saying unpopular works should get longer protection, not with extremist crap about abolishing copyright altogether, and my proposal was an answer to that, agreeing with the single-digit terms and countering on the unpopular works getting longer protection part.

But your system isn't going to end up with single-digit protections for all but the most insignificant and irrelevant works.

So you think the government should track every single shell script someone writes, or every short story or poem an 8-year-old writes, so that the least profitable works can get longer protection even though they don't make any money?

No, I think if you want commercial protection for your Copyrighted work then it should be an opt-in system, just like a patent. There's no need to track every work, just the ones that are registered for commercial exploitation.

No longer leader

[Anonymous Coward]

Rick Falkvinge founded the party in jan 1 2006 and was it's leader for exactly 5 years. Current leader is Anna Troberg

Re:No longer leader

[Anonymous Coward]

That's true - he actually (supposedly) commented on that himself in an earlier thread.

Re:No longer leader

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah,he actually pointed that out himself in the next thread.

Original article is on Techdirt

[CrystalFalcon]

Use the second link.

The original source of this message is the column on Techdirt named It is time to stop pretending to endorse the copyright monopoly. The ITWorld reporter (the first link in the story) muddles the message to some degree, and also introduces heavy bias into the story (see the headers over the comments section, for instance).

The original message is that yes, the copyright monopoly (or four/five monopolies) are ridiculous, but we should stop pretending to support them all while criticizing the draconian laws that are de facto needed to sustain them. IT World muddles this to that we should stop "following" the copyright monopoly laws. That is a different message (which I might have said too, but not in this particular article).

Re:Original article is on Techdirt

[CrystalFalcon]

Also, I have not been the leader of the Swedish Pirate Party for a bit over a year. I am its founder and I led it for its first five years. Anna Troberg is the current leader of the Swedish Pirate Party.

Cheers,
Rick

Re:Original article is on Techdirt

[Anonymous Coward]

Civilization needs people like you. Finally a leader I can stand behind.

Re:Original article is on Techdirt

[CrystalFalcon]

Thank you, good sir. Those are very kind words.

Although, I prefer the swarm as an organization rather than a hierarchical structure, so "stand behind a leader" isn't really what happens when I work. When I "lead", in quotes, I say out loud that I'm going to do something to accomplish a goal, and that others are welcome to follow me in that action if they like. Usually, a couple of hundred or thousand do.

Othertimes, other people in the swarm -- or the group as a whole -- decides on a course of action that I take part in.

I don't command military style. (Despite holding officer's rank in the Swedish Army, for trivia.)

Cheers,
Rick

Re:Original article is on Techdirt

[Anonymous Coward]

DOH!!

Re:Original article is on Techdirt

[Anonymous Coward]

"Pirating copyrighted content" and "copyright" are separate issues.

I make independent feature films with money saved working. My films have a small following. My sales are usually from DVDs.

I have a serious problem in removing pirated content from websites. I do not have the resources or the time to enforce or send "Take Down" notices. The argument copyright enforcement troubles only big media businesses is also incorrect - at least in my case.

That said, I agree the current copyright laws in US/Canada are silly.

Re:Original article is on Techdirt

[Anonymous Coward]

The article is interesting, but it's like declaring that gravity is ridiculous after having fallen out of an airplane. You're going the wrong way.

Re:Original article is on Techdirt

[CanEHdian]

Rick Falkvinge and his colleagues in European Parliament: help us, you are our (North America's) only hope!

The US and Canadian election systems are inherently undemocratic (if democracy = every vote counts); in Canada a minority party (this interview the Green Party leader states clearly that a 12 year copyright term "seems reasonable". Unfortunately for most Canadians, a vote for the Green Party is a vote that ends up in the trashbin.

That being said, I do endorse the copyright monopoly... as long as the copyright term is reasonable, and Rufus Pollock's "optimal" 15 years sounds like a good line-in-the-sand maximum, and as long as there are generous exceptions for private, non-commercial and research use. The exceptions make the draconian laws obsolete.

The reason for my opening line: any change in this Culture of Copyright can only come out of Europe.

Note and case in point: for fellow Canadians, please be aware that the Canadian government is planning to enter into the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade pact, which would "force" them to extend (!!!) copyright term by another 20 years. For background information and how to voice your opinion, see Dr. Geist's blog.

Re:Original article is on Techdirt

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand this obsession with pirating. There is no need to abolish copyright. Nobody is forcing you to listen to copyrighted music. There are many artists who put their work in the public domain. Listen to their music. Or make your own music. Why do you insist on copying the work of those artists who choose to distribute/sell their work on their own terms?

Re:Original article is on Techdirt

[delinear]

Two points. Firstly, not everyone who is against copyright is for pirating. I either buy my content or obtain it from legal sources (e.g. the public domain) but I am still allowed an opinion on copyright, and in my opinion it is too far reaching and the balance of power has swung too far from the original intention. Secondly, they're not selling "on their own terms" those terms have been stolen from the public. We the public granted specific rights for a limited term, recognising these were a necessary evil in order for artists to be paid for what they do. Ever since then our rights have been traded away for short term financial gain or political profit by the very people who should be protecting our rights. That should be offensive enough to anyone on either side of the argument, whether you feel copyright is needed or not, our laws should not be for sale to the highest bidder.

Re:Original article is on Techdirt

[delinear]

If the Lib Dems in the UK have proven anything it's that a distant third place party with tiny chances of election will happily sell their manifesto promises down the river for a share of temporary power. It's depressing really to think that the idealist parties of today are just the lobbyist's new best friends of tomorrow. Money in politics really does make a mockery of the whole "democratic process".

Re:Original article is on Techdirt

[Anonymous Coward]

...the balance of power has swung too far...

No it has not. You have all the power. If you don't like copyright (or DRM), then don't support those artists (or SW developers) that use it. Support the artists whose terms you like. No artist is forced to copyright their work. They can release their work in the public domain if they want, and they can do that at any time they want.

"Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote." - Marvin Simkin

Re:Original article is on Techdirt

[Translation Error]

No it has not. You have all the power. If you don't like copyright (or DRM), then don't support those artists (or SW developers) that use it. Support the artists whose terms you like. No artist is forced to copyright their work.

And part of that power is advocating a change in copyright laws.

Re:Original article is on Techdirt

[CastrTroy]

Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but one does have to wonder. The original copyright laws with their 17 year term (I think) were written in a time when there was no digital copy of anything. If you had a book, and you wanted to copy it out for someone else, you could copy it out by hand or set up a printing press and do a run of books. These processes would be a huge undertaking. And you wouldn't end up with something that was exactly the same product as the first. If the current copyright term was only 15 years, Think about how much content would be freely available in digitally perfect copies for everyone to use. All the music through to the late 90's, along with all the movies, books, and other copyrightable materials. There would be so much freely available content that there would be very little room for people to make money off new stuff. There's so much content available for free on my eBook reader due to all the old public domain stuff, that I find it really hard to justify paying for new material until I've become bored with the old stuff, or until something new that is truly remarkable comes along. I don't think I'd seriously consider paying for anything if copyright was only 15 years. Because there would be so much free content otherwise, that I really couldn't justify it, unless the cost of the copyrighted content was just pennies.

Re:Original article is on Techdirt

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand your analogy. Could you please use something that refers to cars?

Keep the concept of copyright

[nurb432]

Just make it more reasonable and not oppressive. The idea of getting credit isn't bad, its just morphed over the decades into something evil.

Re:Keep the concept of copyright

[sincewhen]

So, you want something more like Moral Rights.

Re:Keep the concept of copyright

[Thing 1]

"Getting credit" is achievable through the BSD license. "Copyright" is the elimination of the rights of others, for a temporary (hah!) time.

Re:Keep the concept of copyright

[Ihmhi]

1-5 years is more reasonable for a copyright nowadays.

The life of the author + 70 is not.

Typical Politician

[artor3]

He sounds like a typical politician, making big bold lies that are more descriptive of how he sees the world than how it is.

People do, generally, follow copyright. Millions of people buy books or DVDs or music or software. Those that don't often give reasons like "I wanted to try it before buying it" or "It's not available for sale [where I live]/[in a format I want]" or "I can't afford it anyway", suggesting that they would follow the laws given the right circumstances.

It's good that people generally follow these laws, because the core idea of copyright (that creators have a right to be reimbursed for their hard work) is a good one.

Now, the statement that "Copyright laws are ridiculous" is unambiguously true. Any law that suggests the unauthorized download of MP3s causes trillions of dollars worth of damage to the economy is clearly insane. But suggesting that we should have no protection for creators at all is equally insane. It's just a nice fiery soundbite intended to get his supporters all worked up, so that they'll donate more or participate in get out the vote efforts, etc.

We need copyright reform, and hopefully the pirate parties draw attention to that fact. But copyright abolition is a cure worse than the disease.

Re:Typical Politician

[SteveFoerster]

But copyright abolition is a cure worse than the disease.

Only for those on the corporate side of the copyright-based industries. Everyone else would be better off, even most creators.

Re:Typical Politician

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the core idea (in the US) is that a particular expressions of an idea is yours, and cannot be appropriated by someone else. Whether you actually get recompensed for your expression is irrelevant in theory. We all in an informal manner accept the basics of copyrights (and patents and...) when someone says something that we know someone else said before, and we get on the person for claiming it is their idea when it really isn't.

Copyright abolition, at least for the current systems of laws and enforcement measures, are way, WAY overreaching.

Re:Typical Politician

[Anonymous Coward]

Millions of people buy books or DVDs or music or software.

proof? copyright moguls own "stats" suggest the total "theft" by piracy is greater than their industry revenue

It's good that people generally follow these laws, because the core idea of copyright (that creators have a right to be reimbursed for their hard work) is a good one.

An opinion that many rational people might find disagreeable. e.g. in my view, periods of rapid innovation and strong cultural impacts have not been mired by onerous copyright law or these laws were ignored

But suggesting that we should have no protection for creators at all is equally insane. It's just a nice fiery soundbite intended to get his supporters all worked up, so that they'll donate more or participate in get out the vote efforts, etc.

Another opinion that people such as myself find disagreeable. The is no convincing empirical evidence that supports your notion that copyright is inherently good or that the absence of copyright protection is insane. You can find specific examples to your hearts content, but you by no means can present your arbitrary indoctrinated belief as a fact.

Re:Typical Politician

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? Copyright is quite separate from attribution. Claiming someone else's work/ideas as your own is plagiarism. It's fraudulant but not necessary copyright infringement.

Re:Typical Politician

[AK Marc]

I violate copyright because I treat my property as mine. I lend it, perform it in "public" and do whatever I want with it, regardless of the law. The problem with copyright is that the law doesn't follow the goal anymore. It doesn't protect creators when few creators retain rights to their creations. Creators don't have a right to be reimbursed for their hard work. They are reimbursed for freely giving that hard work to the Public Domain. However, they are not living up to their end of the bargain. Effectively nothing has entered Public Domain since Mickey was created, and possibly never will. I don't disagree that copyright is a noble idea. Bribe creators to release creations (or publish specs of inventions). But the current system is worse than abolition.

But copyright abolition is a cure worse than the disease.

The movie industry would bitch and moan for 5-10 years, then get back to business as usual, with movies being played in theaters and on TV, even if DVDs never get released (and likely, DVDs would be released at a $5-$10 price point, rather than the $30 price point most new DVDs list at). Books would stay as is. The result of complete abolition of copyright would be an explosion in music and software the likes of which the planet has never seen. Copyright is holding innovation back more than helping at this point, and doing so by punishing the general public. With it gone, more music would be out there, with no decrease in quality, and app store sized games would be released by the millions. Consoles would probably move back to cartridges and flash-based propriatary storage to maintain a digitial lock on games, and PC games would crash, but the fallout of the abolition would be a huge jump forward in Public knowledge, which was the original point of copyright. The US would be much much better off without copyright. I've visited some places with no software protections, and they are vibrant economies of software creation. You can code whatever you want without worrying that someone else has locked up some feature you thought up. Most software patents are obvious and not novel, and elimination of that hurdle increases programming output.

I can't see any likely future in which we'd be better off with the course we've set vs complete abolition of all IP laws. It would take some getting used to, and some would purposefully sabotage themselves to prove a point, but overall, the world would be a much better place if all I laws (patents as well) were abolished, than to continue the system as done today.

Of course, there is a middle ground, closer to what existed when the Constitution was first ratified where the terms were much shorter and patents could only be of "things" rather than "thoughts" that is better than either extreme. But that was perverted to what we have now, so I'd opt for complete abolition than a middle ground which the content exploiters immediately strive to overthrow, as they have already done once.

Re:Typical Politician

[drsmithy]

Only for those on the corporate side of the copyright-based industries.

And even they wouldn't be going broke. I doubt there are many shortfalls in box office revenues that couldn't be solved by cutting the salaries of a handful of actors.

Re:Typical Politician

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm missing something in this entire debate. If copyrights were abolished, why would "app store sized games [] be released by the millions?" If copyrights didn't exist, and Bob makes a great new app and puts it on the market tomorrow for the low-low price of $1.00, it would be more than worth my time to copy the app in its entirety, and sell it as my own for $0.90 or $0.50 or even $0.10. After all, my costs would be nothing more than whatever effort it takes to copy the app. If my cheaper copy is competing against the original for a fraction of the cost, no one will buy the original, right? So Bob's great new app is going to make him almost no money. Doesn't that mean that Bob will likely spend his time in the future doing virtually anything other than writing apps that will never make him any money? Lots of commenters in the copyright debate seem to think that Bob will somehow be free to create anything he wants without copyrights in the way, and will still have the motivation to do so, but I just don't see it. If you take away copyright, you take away the financial incentive to create. And attribution alone is useless. Simply saying "Bob made this, but I'm selling it for cheaper than him" does Bob absolutely no good. Some artists will still create, but I can't image that the number of professional artists and writers (including programmers) would not plummet without some form of copyright protection. Unless I'm completely off base, no person or company would ever invest millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours to create software, movies, music, whatever if anybody else can come along, rip it off, and sell it for next to nothing. Somebody please tell me where I'm missing the point!!

Re:Typical Politician

[c0lo]

He sounds like a typical politician, making big bold lies that are more descriptive of how he sees the world than how it is.

People do, generally, follow copyright. Millions of people buy books or DVDs or music or software.

Oh? Buying copyrighted works does really mean "to follow copyright"?
Isn't it like saying "Drinking water is getting a glass wet?"

Re:Typical Politician

[artor3]

I agree with pretty much everything in your first paragraph. The industries war against the first sale doctrine needs to end, creators need to get to hold on to their copyrights instead of being pushed into selling their souls to publishers (particularly true in the music industry), and the fact that copyright terms have been indefinitely extended is appalling.

But after that, you get into some serious magical thinking.

For movies -- as you say, in a world without copyright, DVDs may die out. If releasing a DVD means that anyone can now buy it for $5 and distribute it as their own, no serious company is going to release DVDs (or streaming video, for that matter). If they do, someone will just copy the DVD and resell it at a lower price. An abolition of copyright would send the video industry back to the pre-VHS era. A better option is to shorten copyright duration to, say, 20 years. Long enough that they can make all their money with merchandising and sequels and DVD sales, but short enough that it will enter the public domain in the audience's lifetime.

For books -- paper books might stay as is, but ebooks would die. No point in selling an ebook if anyone can just copy it and resell it as their own at a lower price. This would be a significant blow to innovation, as ebooks have allowed a lot more people to self-publish.

For videogames -- as you say, this would be the death of all big budget games. I happen to like gaming, as do hundreds of millions of other people, and don't want to see it die out. The indie gaming scene is thriving right now, so I don't understand your suggestion that copyright abolition would make it better. Given your statement, "You can code whatever you want without worrying that someone else has locked up some feature you thought up," I think you're conflating copyrights with software patents. I agree that the latter needs to be severely curtailed, or outright eliminated, but copyrights are different. You don't get sued for making a similar game to someone else.

For music -- you didn't mention it, which is strange, because it would actually do the best in a world with no copyrights, as artists already make most of their money from touring. Even so, I like music copyrights if only for the fact that they allow artists to prevent companies from using their music in ways they go against their original intent.

You're suggesting that eliminating copyrights would lead to thriving innovation, but I see no reason to believe that. Copyrights aren't patents -- no one is held back from writing a new song or book due to copyrights. The terms need to be shortened tremendously, and the draconian measures used to enforce copyrights need to be curtailed, but I've never heard a compelling argument for why the core idea of copyright is a bad one.

Re:Typical Politician

[AK Marc]

no serious company is going to release DVDs (or streaming video, for that matter). If they do, someone will just copy the DVD and resell it at a lower price

So, if you can press a DVD for $0.10 and DVD blanks are $1, if you press DVDs and sell them to the stores or $0.11, how will someone sell it for less? Casual DVD copiers will pay 10 times that for the blanks. Oh no, the creator will have to compete on price! But if they did, rather than charging $30 for $0.30 of materials, and $29.70 in monopoly markup, then there'd not be a problem. And no, I don't think they'd sell it for $0.11, but if you are going to assert someone would always sell it for less, I'm pointing out there's some point where nobody would bother to try to undercut it.

Re:Typical Politician

[artor3]

And if they pay you to take it, no one will undercut that either. But tell me again why they are bothering to even release these DVDs if their only option is to sell it at a 1 cent markup?

You're demanding that they provide you with a service and get absolutely nothing in return.

Re:Typical Politician

[Anonymous Coward]

"the core idea of copyright (that creators have a right to be reimbursed for their hard work) is a good one."

No, it's a terrible one. If this is the main purpose of these laws then I say abolish them.

The core of copy'right' law should be to promote the progress of the science and useful arts and to serve a public benefit. If they don't and to the extent they don't then we should abolish them. No one is entitled to a monopoly privilege and the assumption that anyone is is a bad one. No one has a right to be reimbursed for whatever work they do, the free market decides that.

Re:Typical Politician

[Anonymous Coward]

Only that's not the core idea of copyright. Copyright was created so more culture would be created into public domain. It is a system to reward authors and artists with a limited (originally what, 24 years after publication?) monopoly in exchange for their work for the people. The initial thought was to create more enjoyable stuff for people to copy freely, after the limited time the author has to recoup his expenses by selling his work. The initial thought was NOT to create a) the concept of intellectual property, b) limit free flow of information (beyond what is beneficial for the people) by keeping culture hostage, c) create a retirement fund for artists. It was always about the people and culture, not the artists.

I'd really have less of a problem with copyright if it was fair to both sides of the agreement. The original IIRC 24 years was in a time with a lot smaller market and slower distribution. Nowadays the (generously) equivalent term would be something like 5-10 years. That I could live with and abide by. Given of course that after that time the FULL work is released (source code, original tracks, sheet music etc) for the people to benefit from.

Re:Typical Politician

[Anonymous Coward]

Why must you call James Madison, one of our founding fathers and the father of the constitution, a liar? :/

Yes I know, I'm making the assumption that you will not admit that you are wrong, but if you knew you were wrong I can only assume you wouldn't have typed what you did.

To quote wikipedia

Madison proposed that the Constitution permit Congress "to secure to literary authors their copyrights for a limited time", or, in the alternative, "to encourage, by proper premiums & Provisions, the advancement of useful knowledge and discoveries"

Let's DIFF that with what you claim he said:

because the core idea of copyright (that creators have a right to be reimbursed for their hard work) is a good one.

I seem to get a huge binary mismatch error there...

The only people who feel copyright exists only to profit from are the same people passing SOPA to ensure only they profit from it.

I thought most slashdotters were against SOPA and such draconian laws, yet then we see posts of support like this one get modded up to +5 insightful.

There is absolutely no hope left for this country. I give up.

Re:Typical Politician

[AK Marc]

That's not the only option. It's just the one that proves you wrong. Since you seem to agree your premise is wrong and that I'm right, with the only quibble being profit margin, why not answer your own rhetorical questions. What level of profit do you think they should get? You tell me that, and give the supply/demand curve for this hypothetical DVD and I'll give you the answers you are looking for. Anything else and you'll incorrectly assert I'm wrong, as you aren't trying to examine the possibilities, but instead ridicule anyone that doesn't hold your incorrect opinion.

Re:Typical Politician

[rtb61]

There is a little more to it than that. You have to store the content, get it to the manufacturer, return the completed item to the distribution point and the market and promote the distribution point, to get customers to use it. Then of course there is reliability of content and whether people will actually get what they are expecting.

With or with out copyright there will be reliable distribution points which people will rely on to get the expected quality of content, picture and sound not necessarily acting and, story. Consider already available public domain works not all distributors are equal.

Of course the fight back against the excesses of the pigoplists and corrupt politicians, will be slow but sure, first the decriminalisation and return back to purely civil offence, the shortening the period of copyright in conjunction with the assessment of copyright periods bound to the types of work and effort and cost required to produce them and the incomes obtained from those works.

Re:Typical Politician

[metacell]

Publishing someone's work without any attribution at all isn't plagiarism, but it still violates the right to attribution.

And yes, the "right to attribution" is explicitly written into European copyright laws.

Re:Typical Politician

[Anonymous Coward]

the core idea of copyright (that creators have a right to be reimbursed for their hard work) is a good one.

No, the core idea of copyright is that one should use law to enable copyright owners to, when they see fit, deny other people the right to produce copies of tangible and intangible goods.

An idea that may or may not follow is that they will usually be persuaded to grant other people that right if they are paid, but there are other circumstances where they may still deny copies to be made, or extort the other people.

In contrast to copyright, a law that instead grant creators a certain income based on the amount their work is reproduced, is a law with the idea "that creators have a right to be reimbursed for their hard work".

Re:Typical Politician

[Twylite]

The only party to profit here is the one that can press DVDs at the lowest cost. The content of the DVDs is irrelevant and effectively has no value. There is no economically sensible reason to create content.

Re:Typical Politician

[Anonymous Coward]

People do, generally, follow copyright.

I try to follow copyright laws to the tee because I think civil disobedience should be reserved for the really big issues.

It's good that people generally follow these laws, because the core idea of copyright (that creators have a right to be reimbursed for their hard work) is a good one.

No, it would be preferable that people generally followed these laws because one should follow the law.

And you have misunderstood the core idea of copyright. It is not there to give the creators their dues but to give people an insentive to create. The difference is subtle but important. The society reserves the right to not offer that insentive. No God-given rights will be violated if copyright laws are abolished. The consequences are not moral but only technical, practical and economical.

We need copyright reform, and hopefully the pirate parties draw attention to that fact. But copyright abolition is a cure worse than the disease.

I happen to believe copyright abolition is necessary and healthy to the society. Yes, it will cause trillions of dollars to evaporate from the economy (with my job along with them, possibly), but I believe it will spur innovation and creativity and produce more value to humanity. It may mean the government may have to step in to finance a bigger part of the creation process (which they already are to a large extent). The technical sophistication of entertainment might go down. But people will get entertained: witness the numerous youtube videos people produce without any hope of monetary compensation.

Re:Typical Politician

[metacell]

I'm missing something in this entire debate. If copyrights were abolished, why would "app store sized games [] be released by the millions?"

That may be an exaggeration by the GP, but I think copyright abolition would stimulate the creation of new works.

In the case of apps, you could take thousands of old console, arcade and home computer games and package them as cheap apps for cellphones, laptops and tablets. This doesn't get done under the copyright monopoly because it's too hard and expensive to even find out who owns the copyright to a game. The original production company is likely to be out of business or merged and sold several times, but thanks to pirates, it's possible to obtain copies of these old games.

Same thing with books - there are literally millions of books which can't be included in projects such as Gutenberg because they're still in copyright, but for most of the works, it's practically impossible to find the copyright holder. If copyright was reduced to a more sensible time frame, these millions of books could be available on any iPad, Kindle, tablet, cellphone or PC at the touch of a button.

Documentary film makers face a similar problem, since they use hundreds of film clips and photographs, and need to obtain the rights to them before they can release their documentary. There are actually documentaries which are completely finished but can't be released, because the maker can't afford the rights.

In the case of music, we can already see the creativity that happens when copyright is ignored on YouTube. People make remixes and combine music and video from different sources. Most of these are actually illegal, but often ignored by the copyright holders because they're harmless.

In the case of japanese comic books (manga), ignoring copyright has allowed a large number of them to be translated into English by fans, even though it's not commercially viable. The same is true for japanese animation (animé) - they're translated, subbed and put up on the Internet for free by fans, and thus become available to people who would otherwise never had the chance to read/watch them.

As for obtaining revenue... Most authors and music artists can't live off their art, and that's always been the case. Of those that can, most derive their income from secondary sources, such as performances and merchandise. Many music artists have already discovered that they're better off economically by giving their music away for free and get people to come to their concerts and buy their merchandise. I suspect the same will be true for literary authors: they'll discover they can give their books away as free downloads, and earn more money by selling bound and signed editions, holding lectures, workshops and private readings, and so on.

Re:Typical Politician

[metacell]

But tell me again why they are bothering to even release these DVDs if their only option is to sell it at a 1 cent markup?

If they wouldn't bother to sell it at a 1 cent markup, then their competitors wouldn't bother either, which means they can sell it at a 2 cent markup without risking someone undercutting their price. If that's too little to be worth it, it's not worth it for their competitors either, which means they can sell it at a 3 cent markup, and so on. There's always a point where it's barely profitable to release the DVD, and therefore nobody tries to undecut your prices.

In fact, the exact same argument can be applied to any commodity on the market. For example, in the case of cars, you could say:

"If anybody could sell cars, competitors would start undercutting each other's prices, and the profit margin would go down to zero. Thus, nobody would bother to sell cars on an open market, and therefore, we need a monopoly on cars."

The argument is wrong for cars for precisely the same reason it's wrong for film DVDs. Since we're talking about films which have already been produced and recouped their investment at the theatres, selling DVDs of them is not different from selling any other physical product.

Re:Typical Politician

[metacell]

Precisely... if I make a good product (say, a better mousetrap), I'm not automatically entitled to a financial reward for it. I also have to market it, get production and logistics to work well, find an outlet, and so on. Then, if I do a good job and am lucky, I may get a profit. But I'm not entitled to it. It's my own responsibility to make sure my product results in a profit, no matter how good it is.

The same is true for artists. They can't expect society to bend backwards to give them a profit, just because they make good art. If they want their good art to result in monetary rewards, it's their own responsibility to come up with a business idea, market it and carry it through.

Re:Typical Politician

[Anonymous Coward]

A well rationed statement is no way to win an argument against an overblown stance.
That isn't the way compromise works.

You need an equally irrational and opposite position to reach some form of equitable solution.
You need to be loud, believable and consistent. If you say something enough times, people will believe you are true.

Re:Typical Politician

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone else would be better off, even most creators.

Yes, clearly the pool of starving artists is far, far too small.

As a one man shop put out of business by pirates, I will speak for every small business which has been harmed by illegal theft of copyrighted works - FUCK YOU! Almost no creator would be "better off" with the abolishment of copyright law. That's a FACT. Furthermore, any creator who doesn't wish their works PROTECTED by copyright law is free to release it into the public domain.

Falkvinge says giving credit is important, but not worthy of a law.

This has got to be one of the dumbest things I've heard about copyright in at least a year or more. This guy is borderline retarded. Credit is directly associated with income, reputation, and future earnings. His statements literally translates to mean, "creators should never ever be compensated for their work." So you'll have to excuse me while I tell this fucktard communist to go fuck off.

Re:Typical Politician

[Anonymous Coward]

...the core idea of copyright (that creators have a right to be reimbursed for their hard work) is a good one

I call bull on this statement. Plenty of people work hard doing something that no one needs, and I don't think this entitles them to anything. The reason for Copyright is to promote the advancement of science and the useful arts. I am not willing to let my mind be regulated because someone else "worked hard". What does that have to do with me? Now, promoting advancement--that benefits me. (Tangentally, submitting to Copyright for 90 years beyond the death of the author does NOT promote the advancement of science of anything else besides this flawed mindset of "I have a right to be reimbursed for my hard work".)

Re:Typical Politician

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Only for those on the corporate side of the copyright-based industries. Everyone else would be better off, even most creators.

So this has turned into an argument between two straw men?

Strawman #1: People don't follow the copyright laws anyway so what harm can come from simply abolish them?

Well evidence does show that the majority of the public do respect the current copyright laws. They don't do it because they're scared of the movie/record/software industry lawyers; They do it because they think they are paying what the work is worth and support the idea of the creative artist/programmer getting paid for the effort. Sure it looks like a lot of people pirate but that could simply be because the squeaky wheel gets the grease meaning that people who do buy songs from iTunes/Amazon or purchase software don't go around making a big deal out of it.

Let me put it another way. People shoplift. A lot of shop keeps experience revenue loss from "shrinkage" which is the term they use for inventory that left the store without payment. Does this mean that we should abolish our current system of commerce? No. I find the Pirate Party's argument just as ridiculous.

Strawman #2: Copyright are only for those on the corporate side of the copyright-based industries.

This looks like an attempt to engage in a fictional class war where only the wealthy evil corporations have copyrights and the common man is being oppressed by them. Give me a break. There are many independent artists/programmers that depend on copyright laws to protect their interests, and unlike the other forms of intellectual property protections (patents), copyright doesn't require a substantial investment in legal fees just to make your work public. Not to mention, most of our favorite open source licenses depend on copyright laws to give there terms legal protection. What you thought corporations followed the GPL out of the kindness of their hearts and to protect their honor?

If you need something to fight against then please take up the cause to abolish software only patents. Now that does nothing but to serve corporate interests, venture capitalists, and their lawyers.

Re:Typical Politician

[Bill_the_Engineer]

The movie industry would bitch and moan for 5-10 years, then get back to business as usual, with movies being played in theaters and on TV, even if DVDs never get released (and likely, DVDs would be released at a $5-$10 price point, rather than the $30 price point most new DVDs list at).

So you based your argument for abolishing the copyright system on one industry's alleged ability to make money despite the absence of copyrights? You act like nobody else uses copyrights to protect their works. You also act like the movie industries solely use copyrights to protect their market shares. Who owns the distribution system? The television stations? The radio stations?

I'm just asking you to reconsider the cause for the alleged abuses by the movie industry. A lot of industries depend on the existence of copyrights and they don't have the same power as movie moguls to control their market.

Re:Typical Politician

[alexo]

[...] because the core idea of copyright (that creators have a right to be reimbursed for their hard work) is a good one.

No, it is not.

Furthermore, it is not, and never has been, the "core idea" of copyright.

Nobody, creators included, has a right to be reimbursed for their work. To overcome this, most people in capitalistic societies enter into some sort of a contractual agreement with employers, customers, patrons, etc. which goes along the lines of: I will provide you with my work (or the products resulting from it) and in return, you will give me currency (or an equivalent in goods or services).

The justification to break away from this model by introducing copyright was that society as a whole benefits from having a rich culture, which includes an abundance of creative works. Therefore it is in the society's best interest to provide incentives for creators to continuously supply society with their creations even when "traditional" remuneration options are unavailable. The chosen implementation was to grant the creator of a work a limited time monopoly on its reproduction and distribution (literally: the right to copy), after which, the work reverts to the public domain. It was assumed that a term of 14 years was a reasonable compromise.

Now, some would say that the real reason for copyright was an attempt to forever lock down culture for the benefit of middlemen, and gven the way legislation and enforcement has proceeded I tend to agree.

Re:Typical Politician

[Hatta]

For videogames -- as you say, this would be the death of all big budget games. I happen to like gaming, as do hundreds of millions of other people, and don't want to see it die out.

If hundreds of millions of people truly like gaming and don't want to see it die out, then you should have no problem fund raising for new games. If they don't bother to do so of their free will, then nothing they really valued was lost.

I've never heard a compelling argument for why the core idea of copyright is a bad one.

Basic laws of economics. Infinite supply leads to zero marginal price. Trying to legislate around market forces when technology has fundamentally changed the market is never a good idea.

Re:Typical Politician

[Anonymous Coward]

Run for President please.

Re:Typical Politician

[V for Vendetta]

We need copyright reform, and hopefully the pirate parties draw attention to that fact. But copyright abolition is a cure worse than the disease.

There were two (german) articles (and a book) about copyright in Europe and Germany's development from a basically all agricultural country to one of Europe's leading industrial nations in the early 1900s. it compares the U.K. and Germany in terms of copyright laws from 17something on, a time where the U.K. already had a copyright law, Germany not.

This period correlates with rampant "pirating" of all things printed in Germany. Publishers copied any book they could get hold of and reprinted (=sold) it themselves. That lead to a) very low book prices, which in turn made those books available and affordable for the masses and b) led to an explosion in inventions inspired by those books by people that otherwise would never have thought of inventing anything at all. People, that never had the chance (and money) to visit a university. A bunch of autodidacts, if you will.

So it really stands to question if the cure is worse. The book/those articles suggest the opposite.

Re:Typical Politician

[Anonymous Coward]

Oohh, lemme throw another few strawmen onto the pile.

Actors shouldn't be paid 10 million per movie anyway
Writers/musicians make all their money from live venues anyway
This is holding back technology. Insert buggy whip manufacturer here.
If you were filthy rich, you'd do the exact same thing anyway to stay filthy rich.

etc, etc.

Maybe we can get a straw-football team together with a few more players.

Re:Typical Politician

[AK Marc]

First to market still has an advantage. If you have 1,000,000 DVDs on the shelves before anyone gets a chance to copy them, then you have an advantage.

Also, would you, personally, if you walked into a store and saw two DVDs side-by-side, one the "official" DVD by the actual creators and one "bootleg" for the same price, which would you pick? Why? And how much extra is that one worth to you?

Re:Typical Politician

[AK Marc]

I'm just asking you to reconsider the cause for the alleged abuses by the movie industry.

Copyright is the *cause* of the abuses (fraud, illegal accounting, contract violations, etc.) perpetrated by the movie industry. And ending copyright will end their abuses. Overnight. No more squeezing of theater chains (often owned or influenced by the studios) to push or kill some movies based on the studio. No more hollywood accounting because all the transfers between business units would be reduced, for every transfer of the non-copyrighted "trade secret" movie would bring risk, so they'd hold it closer until released. It's actually impossible to accurately predict, as the changes would be so drastic, but one can guess. The one thing for sure, the abuses they get to do because they have the government with guns ready and willing to enforce their artificial monopoly would all end, and that would make a big difference (And cut the budget, as the government would no longer need to investigate and litigate all those cases - go small government).

Re:Typical Politician

[UnknownSoldier]

> People shoplift. Does this mean that we should abolish our current system of commerce?
1. Apples and Oranges. You are comparing with the act of physical removing an object preventing another person from using that resource, vs the act of copying something that allows BOTH people to enjoy the use of that resource.
2. Economy/Commerce is nethanderal thinking -- literally buying into the false belief that "There is Never Enough." Its time to end archaic thinking.

> and unlike the other forms of intellectual property
1. Intellectual Property, is neither intellectual, nor property
See:
If Intellectual Property Is Neither Intellectual, Nor Property, What Is It?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080306/003240458.shtml
and
Against Intellectual Monopoly
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm

2. The fact that is is illegal to share a number is insane. The fact that a number can be used to _represent_ audio, video, text, etc. created by someone who doesn't want others to share that number is irrelevant. The basis of civilization is FOUNDED upon the fact that people SHARE.

3. Those who charge for "I.P." are doing it out of greed. It is time the human race grows up, and realizes there is more to life then money -- more then just getting, but giving.

Re:Typical Politician

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Copyright is the *cause* of the abuses (fraud, illegal accounting, contract violations, etc.) perpetrated by the movie industry.

Actually greed is the *cause* of the abuses and none of the examples you listed involve copyrights. The very low number of independent quality film studios gives the industry the ability to set the price of goods. Evidently you find this price fixing unacceptable. The lack of copyrights would actually make the problem worse since it would lower the number of studios that are able to afford to produce the blockbusters you desire to an even lower number (maybe even zero).

I believe that we are in a period of potentially huge change in that industry since we have technology giving everyone the ability to produce their own show/movie and the internet giving them an non-monopolized resource to distribute it to their audience. This will eventually solve the apparent price fixing, but really good movies aren't cheap to produce and the creator needs to have methods and laws in place that enables them to recoup their expenses and make a little money.

The question I have is why you feel the creator of a work doesn't deserve the ability to make money for that work or have a say in how it's distributed?

Re:Typical Politician

[AK Marc]

If copyrights didn't exist, and Bob makes a great new app and puts it on the market tomorrow for the low-low price of $1.00, it would be more than worth my time to copy the app in its entirety, and sell it as my own for $0.90 or $0.50 or even $0.10. After all, my costs would be nothing more than whatever effort it takes to copy the app. If my cheaper copy is competing against the original for a fraction of the cost, no one will buy the original, right?

Depends on the fraction, and other factors. He releases 1.0 and you copy it. He fixes some bugs, then out comes 1.1. You then have to keep up with his updates, and if bugs are reported on yours and not fixed, you may get a lower rating. High rated $.99 cent apps get installed a lot, often more than lower rated $0.00 apps. And what do you do if he releases it as ad supported (like Angry Birds did when clones, like Beaver's Revenge came out)? You gonna pay people $0.50 to install it and make up for the loss by volume?

Somebody please tell me where I'm missing the point!!

You are trying to find edge cases of where copyright is not provably worse than no copyright and incorrectly generalizing to all situations. Try thinking about it from the prespecitve of copyright was never created (it is a relatively new legal construct, and the printing press took off despite copyright, not because of it). What would the content creators have done with 500 years of evolution without a concept of copyright? If you only look at it as "I know a guy making $0.99 games in his garage, how will he make money tomorrow if copyright is abolished?" That's the opposite of why copyright was invented anyway, and not related to whether copyright works to achieve the goals stated in the Constitution.

Re:Typical Politician

[AK Marc]

The lack of copyrights would actually make the problem worse since it would lower the number of studios that are able to afford to produce the blockbusters you desire to an even lower number (maybe even zero).

And here's where your unfounded opinion differs with mine and reality. Some of the largest "works of art" (as, say, a percentage of global economic activity) were done before and without copyright. Yet, you assert that without copyright, all art will stop (well, at least the expensive Hollywoodland-style stuff). Given that history proves your hypothesis wrong, I don't see why it's up to me to prove you wrong beyond all your doubts, especially since you've chosen sides and likely wouldn't change you mind even if a time traveler kidnapped you and showed you an alternate present or future in which you were wrong. I'm sure you'd say what others have said "cultural differences" or whatever for how it could work then or for some other medium, but would never, ever work for movies.

The question I have is why you feel the creator of a work doesn't deserve the ability to make money for that work or have a say in how it's distributed?

I can't tell if you are mentally ill, or just such a liar you are unable to read something you disagree with without lying to yourself about what they said. You statement is unrelated to anything I've ever said. Why are you compelled to lie to support your fallacious argument?

Re:Typical Politician

[wvmarle]

People do, generally, follow copyright. Millions of people buy books or DVDs or music or software.

They do not buy the books/CDs because it has the copyright notice on it. They buy it because they want to read a book or listen to a CD. And buy the physical product because they like to hold a book, or look at the cover of a CD, or for whatever reason. Even out of habit maybe.

When I want a book or movie I go to a shop that sells it to me - and I don't worry about how that shop got its stocks. That's not my business - when it's in a shop I assume it's legit, it's not me duty to try to confirm it anyway. Nor could I really check this anyway. Copyright notices on packing anyone can print. Holograms and whatnot well besides that I wouldn't know how an original would look like or whether it should be there to begin with, can be copied too.

Re:Typical Politician

[jmcvetta]

People do, generally, follow copyright. Millions of people buy books or DVDs or music or software.

People do still buy (a few) books. However in this case people are mostly paying for a rather durable and ergonomic storage medium. Note how books of similar physical size tend to be priced similarly, regardless of their content.

But who do you know who still buys DVDs? I know no one. There are a few who have large legacy collections left over from the Bad Old Days before the net universalized access to cultural data - but these collections are physically unwieldy and often seen as burdensome. Lotta people are using Netflix instant or similar services offered by cable carriers. This is seen less as "renting movies", more as "renting small box that magically pops any movie I want onto HD teevee".

Some affluent people still purchase copies of music data from iTunes etc, for sake of convenience or guilt. There's likewise a small but stable secondary market in physical media containing music data too obscure to be readily downloaded. Not sure who buys radio pop music tracks anymore. Certainly the aisles of the few remaining mass market record stores are empty of customers. Maybe a lotta rich+dumb baby boomers who can't figure out p2p still downloading the Beatles & similar crap from iTunes.

Companies and people using software for their profession still buy licenses. Not aware of anyone who does that for their home computers. We who live in the Free world just use apt-get et al., and want not for abundance. Our Windows-encumbered brethren tend to have a godawful mess of factory-installed crapware, pirated warez, and spy/malware on their home systems. Not a paid MS Word in sight...

Those that don't often give reasons like "I wanted to try it before buying it" or "It's not available for sale [where I live]/[in a format I want]" or "I can't afford it anyway", suggesting that they would follow the laws given the right circumstances.

Nah - it suggests you're guilt tripping them.

People generally understand that it's virtuous and mutually beneficial to share cultural data, regardless what the law says. The actions of countless millions speak to this. The idea monopoly companies have spent big bucks on PR campaigns to make people feel guilty for accessing cultural data without permission. How long you think they can keep that up before people get numb? It takes an awful lot of ad time to persuade people that petty oppression is in the public interest.

Re:Typical Politician

[Twylite]

If you have 1,000,000 DVDs on the shelves before anyone gets a chance to copy them, then you have an advantage.

Any how do you do that? If retailers are purchasing stock then they determine the volumes, not you. If you are offering stock on consignment then you will need to raise the ~ $1,000,000 cost of pressing the DVDs. What is the business model you are going to present when you ask for a loan? "Retailers will give me $2 per DVD sold, and hopefully no-one will get a cheaper copy onto the selves before at least 500k copies sell so that I can repay the loan"?

There is also at least one party that can beat you to market and undercut you: the DVD press.

Also, would you, personally, if you walked into a store and saw two DVDs side-by-side, one the "official" DVD by the actual creators and one "bootleg" for the same price, which would you pick? Why? And how much extra is that one worth to you?

Why would I be going into a store to buy DVDs, when I can copy the content from my friend's hard drive?

Re:Typical Politician

[AK Marc]

You are too stupid to see how it would work, and that's the best argument you can come up with against it. I'm not going to trust someone's opinion who parades around shouting "I can't understand how it could work, I'm too stupid, and that proves it can't work."

Why would I be going into a store to buy DVDs, when I can copy the content from my friend's hard drive?

I can do that now legally (depending on one's reading of the law, downloading is legal and not a single case was ever filed against someone for "downloading" and instead they lie and tell the media that downloading is illegal when no downloader has ever been taken to court) (a law never applied means it is legal). So what's different in your bizarro world where DVDs cost 1/6 the cost of now and people spend more time with sneaker net than they do now, when it is legal and media is more expensive?

Re:Typical Politician

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a freelance photographer whom has no other source of income.

Without the copyright laws on my side, I would never have been able to litigate against a multi-million dollar revenue company whom blatantly (without asking) appropriated one of my works and, when initially confronted, said (and I quote) "... I hope you're a fan of our brand, I'd like to send you some merchandise."

The work they used generated direct revenues (by their own admissions) well into four figures. I can only guess what secondary revenues they would have earned as that would have required forensic accounting.

To correctly license the work in advance of using it, they would have had to pay a modest three figure sum. In the end, I had to resort to legal counsel and they ultimately settled out of court with a five figure payment... a good chunk of it (deservedly) going to my lawyer. It took eighteen months to get to that point.

Never forget that copyright legislation exists to protect the "little guy" from being screwed over too - though it's rarely reported on.

Re:Typical Politician

[Twylite]

You are too stupid to see how it would work

You have not provided a single example of a system which cannot be fatally undermined by a single self-interested party.

Just because you think that there must be a workable system that others are too stupid to see, doesn't mean you're right.

I can do that now legally (depending on one's reading of the law, downloading is legal and not a single case was ever filed against someone for "downloading" and instead they lie and tell the media that downloading is illegal when no downloader has ever been taken to court)

Capitol v Thomas: 'the jury was instructed to find the owners' copyrights were infringed provided the ownership claims were valid and provided there was an infringement of either the reproduction right (via Thomas-Rasset "downloading copyrighted sound recordings on a peer-to-peer network, without license from the copyright owners") or the distribution right'.

In fact A M Records Inc v Napster found that a user infringes copyright by either download or uploading, and that Napster could be help liable for contributory infringement.

(a law never applied means it is legal).

Um, wow. Yeah, you keep on believing that.

Re:Typical Politician

[Bill_the_Engineer]

1. Apples and Oranges. You are comparing with the act of physical removing an object preventing another person from using that resource, vs the act of copying something that allows BOTH people to enjoy the use of that resource.

It's not apple and oranges. I was comparing a loss of a potential sale due to copyright infringement to a loss of a potential sale due to shoplifting. I did not make any assertions that copyright infringements equates to theft so there is no need to use that meme.

2. Economy/Commerce is nethanderal thinking -- literally buying into the false belief that "There is Never Enough." Its time to end archaic thinking.

It's nice to see someone fantasizing about a world without the need for commerce.

Intellectual Property, is neither intellectual, nor property

Thanks for your slogan and the links to the opinion pieces. I think you'll find a lot of people question the "not intellectual" part of your assertion as well as the property part. I think technically if you produce something like a painting and believe it to be yours then by definition it is "intellectual property". I believe you really question the need for intellectual property laws but the assertion that intellectual property doesn't exists is false and doesn't really add anything to your case.

The fact that is is illegal to share a number is insane.

Irrelevant. It's not the number that is being shared but the digital representation of the work that is being shared. Paintings, photographs, and literature are not simply a composition of numbers. Of course your assertion is plain silly since you are attempting to justify forfeiting someone's right to copyright protection based on how that work is represented in it's stored state. Analog recordings and digital recording deserve the same level of copyright protection.

The basis of civilization is FOUNDED upon the fact that people SHARE.

Trade is either archaic thinking or a new ideology put in place by people who can't have enough. Which is it? You seem to be contradicting your #2 point in the first half of your comment. By the way, trade laws are recorded within the code of hammurabi which was written in 1772 BC. The ancient greeks and romans had merchants that sold books. Aristotle and Plato have paid for books.

Those who charge for "I.P." are doing it out of greed.

I think they are charging because they like to be able to pay for their expenses. I could easily say that people who infringe copyright do it out of lust and a false sense of entitlement but I don't think that adds much to the conversation about the need for copyright protection.

Re:Typical Politician

[AK Marc]

You have not provided a single example of a system which cannot be fatally undermined by a single self-interested party.

Given the current system has the same flaw, I fail to see how that's a shortcoming. You seem to be asserting that I've asserted copyright is the "best" system and you are arguing against that. I didn't. I've asserted that it's better than what we have now, looking at both at a broad view. Your specific complaints about edge cases is irrelevant to my assertion. But it apparently makes you feel better to argue some irrelevant edge cases, so I indulge you without constant nagging about it being irrelevant. Disney already had unlimited copyright on Mickey, so long as the llaw is extended one century at a time, it isn't "unlimited time" and will remain valid (so say the robed singing group The Supremes).

In fact A M Records Inc v Napster found that a user infringes copyright by either download or uploading, and that Napster could be help liable for contributory infringement.

There has never in the history of the world been a case against a downloader. The issue of whether downloading is adjudicable was not addressed in that case, just whether Napster contributed to *some* infringement. Downloading is impossible without someone uploading, so a system for downloading would violate the law, even if downloading itself was legal. Yes, that's splitting hairs, but all of law is splitting hairs. There has never been a single downloader sued for downloading. Only uploaders called downloaders. It's all a PR campaign against downloading fed through lies.

Just because you think that there must be a workable system that others are too stupid to see, doesn't mean you're right.

Much of the body of knowledge we have now was formed pre-copyright. Reality shows that there was some system, active and workable, that worked for thousands of years before copyright. To idiotically assert that there wasn't or that "on a computer" is actually sufficiently novel as to change everything indicates a lack of thinking. They aren't stupid because they don't agree with me. THey are stupid because they are arguing copyright with complete ignorance of the history of copyright (i.e. that it is a relatively recent invention).

(a law never applied means it is legal).

Um, wow. Yeah, you keep on believing that.

You are better at quoting court cases than I am, but I remember some sodomy laws (specifically anti-gay) where someone sued for them being illegal and the court ruled that the law can't be objected to if it had been unenforced. The effect of that being, it isn't an actionable law if it's unenforced. The court essentially ruled that the act claimed to be illegal was legal because nobody had been in violation of the law if the law was never enforced.

Re:Typical Politician

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that you are missing the general point that copyright law, though intended to protect creators from having their work stolen and profited from consumers by those with greater means is now a tool used by those with greater means to control work and prey on both the creator and consumer. I agree that software patents don't work as you state but so do most general patents that again, are used by those with means to profit w/o the work of a creator. Personally I am all for the abolition of most patent and copyright laws - if for no other reason than the fact that it would force any laws to be proven from the floor up if they were to be re-instituted - and civil action would not go away, but the monetary value placed would need to be proven as a loss by the plaintiff and not the arbitrary $250,000 per infringement (which means that any given case is worth more than the entire industry that it infringes on most of the time)

Re:Typical Politician

[JustSomeProgrammer]

Hypothetical:

I'm another company that has expanded my dvd creation abilities so it only costs me $0.05 to create a DVD. I never create my own work. I wait for someone else to publish something and then sell it at prices that they cannot afford because they had to pay for the creation of the content on the dvd and all I had to do was copy.

End hypothetical.

You can put this into practice for *any* industry. And I do not see why without copyright there would not be businesses that crop up that have this exact model. You get someone else to make your content without you having to pay a dime. It's awesome like free money.

I care about pirates only a little. I care about businesses that crop up and just steal creative work for resale.

Re:Typical Politician

[JustSomeProgrammer]

The argument for cars is true where increased number of venues for the resale of vehicles and the increase in competition makes it so that consumers have to pay a minimum price and everybody still makes a profit. But that isn't the correct analogy because there's not that many companies that actually sell cars. The individual sellers are resellers. Ford sells Ford cars to resellers. If say Ford sold a car and it was not illegal for say Chevy to completely copy their design and make the same exact car without having to pay for any of the research and development that went into creating the car Chevy would easily be able to sell the car at a margin Ford could not find sustainable.

When it comes to creative content like movies and games and music and art the cost to just copy and distribute vs the create and distribute is even more disparate where there is no way someone who creates a large scale creative work could ever compete with a copy and distribute provider.

And there are movies that don't make enough money to be profitable until they hit dvd racks. Not to mention movies and shows that are "straight to DVD". And the argument that straight to DVD is solely made up of poor quality and probably shouldn't be made is not valid because some people do enjoy those movies despite they don't have wide appeal. My niece's favorite movie when she was younger was Aladdin. She loved the straight to dvd sequels too.

Re:Typical Politician

[AK Marc]

Hypothetical:

So, if you see two DVDs on the shelf in a store, one for $5 by the original content creator and one for $4 that is a copy, which would you buy and why?

Re:Typical Politician

[JustSomeProgrammer]

The $4 one. As an average buyer I don't know what the difference is. They both say "Famous Movie directed by John Doe".

Honestly without copyright they can look 100% the same. It is possible that the two boxes would look *exactly* the same.

Re:Typical Politician

[AK Marc]

So if you had the choice and the knowledge of one created by the creator and sold directly by them for $5, you would pay the "pirate" $4 for the same thing. Since that's your personal preference, you must not look down on current illegal piracy, as there's no functional difference. Or are you one of those people who wants everyone else to support the creators while you, personally, refuses to?

Re:Typical Politician

[AK Marc]

Honestly without copyright they can look 100% the same. It is possible that the two boxes would look *exactly* the same.

Do you know the difference between "copyright", "trademark", and "patent"? Because unless Trademark is abolished at the same time, they wouldn't look the same. The "copy" couldn't put the Disney or whatever logo all over their box without permission. But no, I won't let facts get in the way of your unfounded and provably incorrect opinion.

Re:Typical Politician

[JustSomeProgrammer]

Ok exactly the same except using a different font for Disney. Would an average person know the difference?

Re:Typical Politician

[JustSomeProgrammer]

Not necessarily a personal preference. I'm arguing you wouldn't be able to easily at a glance tell the difference. And for an average person who is just going into a store to buy something why should they make the "morally right" choice when you're arguing that it is immoral to not allow this practice.

And most people who count on others to just act morally right usually end up bankrupt or robbed. Personally I choose not to pirate. I think the practice is harmful and I like the socialized cost of major productions that are produced since I really doubt they could be produced at an affordable level otherwise. I don't believe socializing the cost is possible without copyright since the item you produce at the end effectively has no value. The odds of having the original maker's product directly next to the copier's product is actually very small. Those are always deals worked out with stores for display stands. And it wouldn't even have to be up there for that long before the original maker would be put out of business.

Another hypothetical for you:

I create a fantastic game that has the potential to be a market changer. Let's call this game CraftMine. I do a limited release of it to get some user feedback so that I can make improvements. EA gets hold of one of these limited release copies. And they take the game and publish it as EA's WorldBuilder! And it is on shelves in the next week. Without copyright this is not illegal. But the vast majority of the public will believe that EA actually published the title and the original creator is just trying to make mods for the game. I as the original creator wasn't even selling the game yet and am now unable to even try to make money off of my labor.

End Hypothetical

(disclaimer: I have nothing to do with the creation of Minecraft. I just think this is an example where copyright is really extremely useful.)

Re:Typical Politician

[AK Marc]

Regardless of whether average person "would" (a matter of opinion we might never come to an answer on), would *you* if you knew?

Re:Typical Politician

[AK Marc]

Another hypothetical for you:

Shit, that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Here's a hypothetical for you:

Flying cars are being sold new for $1000 each, completely automated, 10,000 mph speed and a perfect flying record from the first 10,000,000 miles flown. You invent an internal combustion engine with 2% more efficiency than today's engine at a 200% increase in price. You market this ground-bound, expensive, unsafe, slow vehicle. Why don't you deserve compensation for your labor?

End Hypothetical.

The issue is you are asserting you will be operating absolutely identical to today if there was a massive change in the market, and blaming the change for your inability to adapt. Why yes, that will fail miserably. I might be able to solve that problem, but it's not worth my time to do that, when you aren't trying to actually see how it would work, but instead trying to come up with excuses why it wouldn't to prove your personal point.

Re:Typical Politician

[JustSomeProgrammer]

Maybe you're right and I am just short sighted in seeing how I can produce creative content for profit when it is easily legally copied by anyone and where that is the correct moral choice. I can think of one path to have some level of compensation for my labor, the donation path, but I haven't seen that earn enough money where I can actually pursue a dream of making creative content.

The argument that I should be able to pursue that dream is the only thing that would be a flaw here. If the assertion is I shouldn't be able to make a living making creative content that does make me quite sad, but if that is the world you think we should live in...

And to break your hypothetical. I don't deserve compensation for it. Because it isn't worth anything. I'm asserting the content I create is valuable and worth the time people put into it (otherwise they wouldn't. Bad books don't get read and bad games don't get played). If the content is not valuable then no I don't expect to earn a dime and I wouldn't want to. I don't want to steal your money any more than I want you to steal my labor.

Re:Typical Politician

[JustSomeProgrammer]

If I knew yes. For the same reason I obey copyright. I think the content creator deserves compensation and I want to help provide funding for him to continue to make more content.

Re:Typical Politician

[AK Marc]

You would, but you hold the opinion that you are smarter than others and might know when they wouldn't, and you think you are more moral than others as wanting to credit the creators when nobody else wants to. Just fucking nail yourself to the cross and get it over with.

Re:Typical Politician

[AK Marc]

that is the correct moral choice

I guess I don't understand. You want Congress - the most immoral bunch of people on the planet, to legislate morality for you? Or better yet, you want them to enforce your morality on everyone else. And you can't see any downsides to that?

And to break your hypothetical. I don't deserve compensation for it. Because it isn't worth anything.

You said in yours "compensation for labor" But that was a lie (red herring) and the compensation isn't for "labor" but for "value as determined by someprogrammer". You just realized how insane it sounds to have value set according to your personal opinion, so you lied and tied it to "labor" then, when that's pointed out to you, you lie again.

. I don't want to steal your money any more than I want you to steal my labor.

There it is again "labor" You've asserted "labor" is valueless, only the product has value. So, were you lying then or are you lying now. I think you are so internally confused that you'll think me an ass for pointing out your lies so bluntly and never even consider the possibility that you are so emotionally tied to the issue that you lie to yourself to make you feel better, and those lies are easily seen by anyone who spends 3 seconds on the topic. You waffle back and forth between "value" and "labor" and "money" interchangeably, but I remain consistent in copying your terminology and you assert I'm wrong.

I'm asserting the content I create is valuable

Yes, your worth is what you assign to it, and is unrelated to "labor" but selling a thought sounds stupid to you, so you don't state it that way, as you know your argument is stupid. "I'm selling my thoughts for lots of money, and they are mine and nobody else can have the thought I had without paying me for it" After all, when you pull "labor" out of it, that's all it is, and you've asserted labor is valueless. So, in adddition to wanting Congress to legislate our morality, you want them to control our thoughts for your material benefit. There may be a better way of compensating people for creating, but that would require change, and it's easier to make up shit to spew on the internet about how the bad bad pirates are crushing creativity because MW3 took a whole 16 days to reach $1,000,000,000 in sales.

Re:Typical Politician

[metacell]

And there are movies that don't make enough money to be profitable until they hit dvd racks. Not to mention movies and shows that are "straight to DVD". And the argument that straight to DVD is solely made up of poor quality and probably shouldn't be made is not valid because some people do enjoy those movies despite they don't have wide appeal. My niece's favorite movie when she was younger was Aladdin. She loved the straight to dvd sequels too.

In practice, this problem doesn't seem to be so big. There's a huge and profitable market that produces straight-to-DVD movies, and historically hasn't bothered to prosecute copyright infringement: the porn market.

One of the reasons it works, is probably becuase the producer invests less in movies which are released straight to DVD.

Shorter copyright

[rgbrenner]

Let's not pretend that copyright doesn't have a good purpose. If I create a new product (w/o a patent), it can take time for other people to copy it. They have to reverse engineer it, and figure out how everything works. And their copy might not be as good as my version.

But with books, music, software... It can be copied the day it's released. And every copy is an exact perfect duplicate. My copy is just as good as another persons copy.

And that difference, means it would be nearly impossible to monetize anything except physical products. So copyrights are needed and are important.

BUT that doesn't mean it should be protected for a 100+ years. Is the phone from 1876 as important today as it was then? Is last decades music listened to as much as music that was released last week? Are books from 100 years ago as popular as today's bestsellers? Copyrighted material becomes worth less as time passes.

After 10 years or so, very few copyrighted works are worth more than a fraction of what they were originally.

So set a 10 year copyright. I would even go for 15 years.. but that's starting to become excessive.

Re:Shorter copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Is last decades music listened to as much as music that was released last week?

You don't live in a radio market where Classic Rock stations rule, do you?

Re:Shorter copyright

[misexistentialist]

And that difference, means it would be nearly impossible to monetize anything except physical products.

Even at the height of the internet (now passed), book, film, and music "properties" were still making 100s of millions and billions of dollars.

Re:Shorter copyright

[AK Marc]

But with books, music, software... It can be copied the day it's released. And every copy is an exact perfect duplicate. My copy is just as good as another persons copy.

So only release it on vinyl. Only sell it at concerts. There are plenty of options to "force" people to get it from you or get an inferior copy. That you can't think of any doesn't make a good argument. "I'm too stupid to solve this problem I made up, so it proves nobody else could ever solve a similar problem." I read that logic daily on places like Slashdot, and I've never once seen the argument by ignorance work. And for books, you can get a jump to market. You go, order 1,000,000 copies from Random House at $1.50 each. Print them all. Send them to Amazon and B&N/Borders. Then put them on sale for $5 each. If it's any good, people will buy it. and nobody will pirate it. It'd cost more than the $5 to make a good quality copy, and anyone printing another through a publisher will have to scan to electronic, OCR, reformat, and then print it, unless they just make an exact duplicate, in which case, you'll have a flood of inferior product (not perfect, but an analog copy of a book) and they'll still spend more per copy to make it than you did, so you'll have price pressure.

Though, this would break the model of releasing the $50 hardcover 6 months before the $20 paperback (and then the $10 paperback 6 months after that). But the goal isn't to prove there'd be no changes to anyone's business model, but instead show that a copyright-less world will still leave room for first to market and momentum to squeeze out competitors without an artificial monopoly based solely on government force.

Re:Shorter copyright

[White Flame]

"Classic" things have had their time, and that time has passed. If those specific works are still around, they should have entered culture and be in the public domain as is the *default* without the government-granted copyright protection.

Re:Shorter copyright

[rgbrenner]

Only because copyright is enforced. Pirated copies can't be sold at Amazon, Best Buy, etc. Selling a pirated copy is inviting a lawsuit and/or FBI raid.

And the amount of money is irrelevant. If they create something that great, then they deserve the rewards from it for a limited period of time.

Re:Shorter copyright

[rgbrenner]

So purchase a million copies of a book at $1.50, and sell them for $5? That's a very similar markup to producing a retail product. What you're basically saying is that the words in the book are worthless, and the author would be better off selling books of blank paper.

Re:Shorter copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah and that point is about where the creative idea, e.g. songwriter (not performer) or author reaches median income for the duration of their creative enterprise. writing a song in a week and neting 10s millions is absurd. writing an a series of seven children's novels over a decade should not manufacture a billionaire and 137 millionaires.

Re:Shorter copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Except you are pulling numbers out of thin air.To use an extreme example for an indie author, let's say I wanted to do as you did. I look up Cafe Press for my admittedly niche book. I want to do a perfect bound 200 page novel, because I'm worried about my ebook being pirated. Guess how much it costs for that book?

$13 USA a copy.

Is this extreme? Yes, POD services are really only good because of the no minimum rule. If you don't expect to have large print runs of books, they make sense. I'm sure I could shop around and cut that in half, but this isn't counting all the things that publishers do for you that cost money, like advertising, appearances, order handling and fulfillment, storing inventory, and a lot of things that are the nuts and bolts of the business of writing. Many authors also are not graphic designers, and would need to hire them to design the physical book, artists to illustrate it, and editors to proofread and give vastly needed feedback on it. There's also no reducing the costs if its just me, where a publisher can take a risk on a niche author because they are making mad money off the latest Harry Potter book. So if anything it's going to be even more costly to go that route, and that's why on Kickstarter you see a lot of swag added to disguise the fact they need you to pony up $30-50 USA for what is a trade paperback and a few intangible benefits or zero-cost add-ons like being credited in a page at the back of the book.

It costs a lot more than $5 to publish a physical book, and people don't realize that the evil corporations actually have managed to lower prices through scale. Giving it to authors themselves are not going to make it cheaper but more expensive. If you don't believe me, go shopping for some.

Re:Shorter copyright

[Jason Levine]

Ironically, I think you could have made a better case for longer copyrights back then (when getting the word out about a work too a lot of time) then today. I definitely think copyright should be scaled back. I'd be very happy if it went back to 14 years plus a one time optional renewal of 14 years. I'd even accept having anything 5 or more years old automatically renewed for the full 28 years and items older than 28 years old phased into the public domain over a few years (starting with the older content).

Re:Shorter copyright

[stephanruby]

But with books, music, software... It can be copied the day it's released. And every copy is an exact perfect duplicate. My copy is just as good as another persons copy.

That's not exactly true.

When given a choice, people usually try to get the work from the original source. It's far more likely to be up-to-date and unaltered that way. It's far more likely that the original creator will answer their questions or clarifications that way. For software, it's far more likely to be more up-to-date, contain less bugs, and work in a networked fashion (since many times, the server-side can be made an intrinsic part of the application itself).

Also, people prefer to go the concerts of the original musicians who created the work. They'll hire the original authors who wrote a particular computer programming book. And generally speaking, whether it is for self-interest or for moral reasons, they'll try to support financially the original source (instead of trying to support the guys who just did the copying without any value-added).

Re:Shorter copyright

[rgbrenner]

So if I write a really great book and provide it to people for $10. And WalMart takes my book, copies it perfectly and places it on their shelves for $2 in front of millions of people. You say, those people will see that perfect copy, and THEN go find out who wrote it, track down the author, find out how to purchase it, and then actually purchase the book for 5x the price? Wow.. what a world you live in.

Re:Shorter copyright

[AK Marc]

Of course I pulled numbers out of thin air. They use simplified hollywood accounting, so the actual real numbers are hard to get. I did acknowledge the scales, or did you not notice I said 1,000,000 books, which is a very large printing.

Re:Shorter copyright

[AK Marc]

They wouldn't be better off selling blank paper unless their content is worse than reading blank pages. But yes, when you have no copyright, the value of the content approaches zero. That requires that we change the model of content that's worth billions for a single game/book/movie. No copyright would work well, but it requires thinking differently, which is why it's so hard for many to grasp.

Re:Shorter copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

So all I need it $1.5m dollars, a place to store 1m books, and a willingness to take on all the associated risk, and I too can be an author? Where to I sign up!?

But wait, there's more. Even if I can do all that, someone richer and bigger than me applies their price pressure and puts me out of business. I'm seriously going to follow through with your plan tomorrow. My next post will be from my yacht.

Re:Shorter copyright

[robot_love]

Let's not pretend that copyright doesn't have a good purpose.

Why not? Copyright is one of those things that has been with us for so long that it has begun to sound right. But the evidence suggests the contrary. Please google and read "Against Intellectual Monopoly" for a comprehensive discussion.

Re:Shorter copyright

[rgbrenner]

They wouldn't be better off selling blank paper unless their content is worse than reading blank pages.

In what way? If I write something on paper, and I have to sell it for the same price as blank paper, why am I writing on the paper? Why would I spend a year+ to write a book, when I can take a stack of blank paper right now and sell it. Why would anyone pay a premium for my writing when it's available for free the next day (when there's no copyright)? Just saying they would be better off doesn't make it so.

Re:Shorter copyright

[swilver]

They've had their chance to be reasonable. Now it is our turn to be unreasonable back -- abolish it, or pretend it is.

Re:Shorter copyright

[AK Marc]

It wouldn't be magically available the next day for free. Someone else is going to spend lots of money to print these books and hand them out? How? Why? Magical mystical benevolent pirates stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. To pirate a book requires more than setting it up on an FTP server.

Oddly, I find those against copyright state they would be willing to pay more to the owner for the product, but those for copyright insist that if copyright didn't exist, they would screw content owners every chance they got. Sadly, that indicates that most supporters of copyright are sociopaths. Why is that?

Re:Shorter copyright

[rgbrenner]

I write a popular book. Walmart buys a few copies and sells them in their stores. They see it is selling great. They print up a bunch of copies, and within a week, they are selling their own copies instead of mine. They look, feel, and are exactly the same. Consumers can't tell the difference, and don't care.

There. It wasn't overnight. It took a week. Which is about how long you can have a printer do a quick turn around on a medium-size print job.

Re:Shorter copyright

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Err.. If you can only compete by stealing my designs then no. We do need copyright and patents.

Re:Shorter copyright

[Twylite]

The only ignorance here is yours. There is no media nor any form of broadcast or performance that is invulnerable to duplication. Given content and the technology to duplicate it, the only economic incentives in the system are to create duplication technology, or to duplicate at a lower cost than all competitors. There is no way to extract value from the creation of content, so no economic inventive to create content.

Live performances (theater, music concerts, and the like) can extract value from the novelty of attending the live performance, but this in no way compensates the composers of the musical score, lyrics, stageplay, etc.

Re:Shorter copyright

[Twylite]

It wouldn't be magically available the next day for free

You're right! It will be available the previous week for free!

Re:Shorter copyright

[metacell]

And that difference, means it would be nearly impossible to monetize anything except physical products. So copyrights are needed and are important.

Counterexample: The fashion industry goes along quite well without protected designs. People pay more - a lot more - for a well-known brand like Dior or Chanel than for an identically-looking copy.

Counterexample: Shakespeare made good money by taking old plays written by other people, re-working them for a contemporary audience, and getting into the theatre business - all without copyright. As a side effect, he also created literature that over a hundred years after his death started to be regarded as some of the foremost in the English language.

Counterexample: Many modern music artists find it more profitable to give away their music as free downloads, and earn money on concerts and merchandise. On the whole, there are more artists, more albums released, and a higher revenue per artist than ten years ago. It's not as pardoxical as it sounds, when you consider that artists that publish through conventional record labels only get around 10% of the sales price of a CD. Eliminating the middlemen means more money for the creators.

Re:Shorter copyright

[metacell]

If Walmart bothers to copy and sell your book, you're either pretty well-known or will become so. You can get people to visit your Internet site, get invited to talk shows, get people to pay for hearing your lectures, pay you to do consultancy jobs for them (for example, writing educational material, or writing an episode of a TV series), and so on.

If you're not so well-known from the start, having Walmart put your books in front of millions people could be the most profitable thing that happened to you...

Re:Shorter copyright

[metacell]

Copyright may have a good purpose, but even so, I find it very hard to justify a copyright term longer than a few years. Most of the revenue from most published works have already been collected within a few years. The rest of the copyright term only benefits a very small number of very successful artists, and, more importantly, corporations that have collected portfolios of successful works (think Disney, or the record companies that own Elvis Presley's and The Beatles' music).

And even in those cases, a longer copyright may create negative incentive - it becomes more profitable to capitalise on your old successes than to create something new.

Re:Shorter copyright

[MrMickS]

Is last decades music listened to as much as music that was released last week? Are books from 100 years ago as popular as today's bestsellers?

Does newer mean better? Just because something is older doesn't mean that its of less import, or value, than something that's new. This might be the case in IT, but outside it's definitely not.

I don't like the idea of a shorter copyright. What if I write a book and it takes me 10 years to find a publisher that will distribute it to the masses? Does that mean that I've used up my copyright?

Copyright is a matter for the copyright holder. It should be up to them what they do with their rights. That said the rights shouldn't be transferable. If I write a book it should be up to me how I make that available. If people don't think that its worth what I want to charge for it they won't buy it. I then get to review that and change my approach, perhaps deciding to make it freely available over the internet. The key thing is that it should be my choice. That's one of the things about the Internet. Give control back to the people. Not to enable people to distribute exact copies of my work without my consent. I know that this view won't be popular on slashdot, but once people get past the 'I want free stuffs' its the only way that creativity can be sustained.

Re:Shorter copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

actually no, current copyright also stops people from improving on your work, for example taking 90% of your song but replacing 10% with much nicer beat and making overall better song than original unaltered version was (off-course nothing than stops you from making another small change and making even better version)

Re:Shorter copyright

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Stop? Why not ask nicely? It worked for Weird Al.

My comment was largely concerned with patents though.

There are flaws in the patent system, competition isn't one of them.

Re:Shorter copyright

[mjr167]

How are though poor wagon makers going to make any money if we allow the automobile makers to introduce their new product into the market? How are the poor film makers going to make any money if we allow people to use digital cameras? What about those poor people importing ice from the arctic? How are they going to survive if we allow refrigeration? However did artists survive for thousands of years without copyright and mass distribution? And those poor, poor artists without a major record contract! How do they get by? Why is it that a print of a Van Gogh sells for a couple bucks but a real one sells for millions?

Your inability to adapt your business model to a changing world doesn't mean we should hold the world back.

Re:Shorter copyright

[SuricouRaven]

You assume everything must be on the 'make it, sell it' model. Music would thrive without any income at all - the cost of production is so slight people would make it purely as a hobby or for game. Books could do almost as well. It's only the media with a high production cost like television and movies that would suffer. While I imagine some groups would keep doing it noncommercially or for patronage like amateur theater groups, production costs would be far, far lower than we are accustomed to in current movies. Expect plenty of paper-mache monsters and underdecorated sets.

Re:Shorter copyright

[AK Marc]

Live performances (theater, music concerts, and the like) can extract value from the novelty of attending the live performance, but this in no way compensates the composers of the musical score, lyrics, stageplay, etc.

Lasted for thousands of years before copyright just on that novelty, so history proves you wrong. I fail to see our point, other than you are an ignorant illiterate prat who parades his incorrect opinion around as fact.

Re:Shorter copyright

[rgbrenner]

It's only the media with a high production cost

Yes.. like software. Who needs that anyway.

Re:Shorter copyright

[rgbrenner]

For all of the few days it takes walmart to cut you out of the loop. Walmart will buy a few copies, see it's selling well, and then go produce copies themselves. It would never be profitable, and the author would never become well known, because long before that (if it sells well), everyone will start making the copies themselves.

Re:Shorter copyright

[SuricouRaven]

Depends on the software. Open source demonstrates that noncommercial projects can succeed, even on software of great complexity like the linux kernel, and there would likely be some patronage too for very niche applications: If a company needs software that doesn't exist, they'll have to have someone make it. I would expect software to actually be one of the less-affected sectors. Movies and television would be the ones to really suffer in a copyright-free world, music the least-effected, and everything else to some extent in between.

Re:Shorter copyright

[CodeHxr]

This might be slightly off-topic, but I feel that removing economic incentive to create content could potentially weed out a lot of "crap" content that I see today. I submit, for example, an extremely large percentage of book-to-movie adaptations, movie sequels, and gaming franchises (Call of Duty, anyone?). Most of this content is made purely for the economic incentive, and in my opinion, is mostly garbage. There's little-to-no innovation, just re-hash of stuff that people bought previously, so it's assumed that they'll buy it again. The fact that it works so well is ... well, depressing. Then there's the music industry... How many bands have "sold out" (defined as giving up rights/principles to other entities for economic incentive)? How much of the music that you hear sounds similar to everything else? Again, in my opinion, it's because "artists" are going for less of the "art" and more for the "economic incentive". "Let's do this type of thing because this is what's popular and people will pay money for". That's not how I prefer my "art" produced. Most of my favorite music are from bands *before* they've hit it big, or from independent game developers that are making games that *they* consider to be fun. I haven't seen many good movies from the independent sector, but I think that's because I just don't like movies - they're too passive for my tastes, but I digress! This discussion is primarily about peoples' opinion (as are so many others), so, by definition, my point of view is going to be wrong. I just felt the need to chime in on the conversation. Flame on! :) (hmm... preview mode is removing my line breaks - apologies if this is a wall of text!)

Re:Shorter copyright

[CodeHxr]

Yep... wall of text. :(

Re:Shorter copyright

[jmcvetta]

If they create something that great, then they deserve the rewards from it for a limited period of time.

What if they create something that sucks dog balls - do they still deserve a reward? If so, how much in proportion to the "great" work? I just "created" an artistic recording of myself farting into my cellphone - how much reward do I deserve? Where can I apply to be the guy who decides - officially! - what's awesome and what blows?

Re:Shorter copyright

[metacell]

How would that prevent them from becoming well-known? If x people read your book, they're just as likely to remember your name regardless of whether they read an authorised copy or a "pirated" one.

Even the Pirate Party wants to retain the creator's right to attribution.

Re:Shorter copyright

[Twylite]

No, I assume that some works will only be produced if there is an economic incentive, allowing the creator to derive an income from his creations. There are some types of work that lend themselves to such endeavor in the absence of copyright (e.g. fine art), although the income potential may be increased by copyright. Other types of work (e.g. books, recorded music) are only valuable to the distributors in the absence of copyright.

Re:Shorter copyright

[Twylite]

1877: the first practical sound recording and reproduction device is invented.

1896: the first public exhibition of projected motion pictures in America.

Prior to that there was no novelty in live performance, there was simply no alternative.

I'm sure the Broadway production of Avatar will be along soon, and will be able to recover the $300 million cost of making the movie.

Re:Shorter copyright

[Twylite]

The fact this these works are popular indicates that your taste in art differs from the majority of consumers who are willing to pay for art. The fact that consumers are willing to pay indicates that these works have value to them. If consumers don't see value in the works, there is no economic incentive to produce them.

Re:Shorter copyright

[AK Marc]

Aeschylus was a professional playright, about 2000 years before copyright. There aren't good records of payment, but supposedly artisans of that era lived well. When I read inane ramblings like yours, I wonder if you've ever read a book in your life. You know, the world existed long before 1877. And people made money on creating things long before copyright.

Re:Shorter copyright

[fuzznutz]

Copyright is a matter for the copyright holder. It should be up to them what they do with their rights.

That kind of thinking is how we ended up with this mess. If the copyright holders have their preferences, we would have no public domain at all. Ever wonder why there is such widespread disregard and disgust for the current copyright system? Copyright holders have been getting their way.

Re:Shorter copyright

[Twylite]

Please, do continue. Every ad hominem hurts you more than it does me.

The technological changes that saw the development of duplication tools dramatically altered the economic landscape for creative works. While the market became substantially larger, new forms of consumption were introduced (music could be heard via recording as well as live performance), as were new forms of competition (a recording could replace a live performance).

It is logically invalid to extrapolate from history the possibility of a future without copyright, unless you correct for the changed variables (described above).

Re:Shorter copyright

[AK Marc]

I have, you disagree. We could do this dance all day, but the simple fact of the matter is we had professional performers, comopsers, writers, and such long before the computer (and will long after the computer) and that's unrelated to copyright. If I could fully correct for all the variables and project a complete alternate present without copyright, then I should put it in a book, copyright it, and make millions from it.

Exponential Growth

[Anonymous Coward]

Allow any work to be copyrighted for 1 year without paying any fees. Let that be the "copyright from the moment your pen touches the paper".

Beyond Year 1, the cost of extending a copyright should be $0.01 * 2 ^ (Year #).

So, renewing the copyright for Year 2 costs $0.04.
Year 10 is $10.24

Copyright protection for a decade is affordable for anyone, and sometimes cheaper than coffee.

Year 20 is $10,485.76

Year 30 is $10,737,418.24

Year 40 is $10,995,116,277.76

So it provides everybody with a reasonable measure of copyright protection.
It provides corporate entities a way to keep copyrights on things that are very profitable.
It ensures that all works will eventually fall to the public domain.

Why not?

Re:Exponential Growth

[CODiNE]

Why not?

Because you don't want Disney causing runaway inflation just to keep Mickey out of the public domain.

Re:Exponential Growth

[artor3]

Why not?

Because politicians don't understand math and would get confused as soon as you write anything resembling 0.01*2^x.

Maybe a simplified version? Copyright is automatic for the first ten years, the next ten cost $10k, then the next ten cost $10M, then $10B, etc.

All works get covered for ten years, successful works for 20, hugely successful and/or corporate backed for 30, realistically nothing for 40 (which is fine by me, since I think most people alive to see the release should live to see it reach public domain). In fact, maybe just automatically end it after 30 years, since otherwise the RIAA will find a way to sue someone for the full $10B for every song they download.

Re:Exponential Growth

[corychristison]

Sometimes I wish slashdot had a "like" button.

Re:Exponential Growth

[Anonymous Coward]

Your system insures that the wealthy will have longer copyrights than the poor. How is that remotely fair?

Re:Exponential Growth

[artor3]

No, it ensures valuable copyrights will last longer. A rich person isn't going to pay $10 million to extend his copyright if he doesn't expect to make a profit off the extension, and a poor person who's in a position where they own a copyright worth the $10M cost of extension has likely already earned more than that during the first twenty years.

The only people who get screwed over are those whose works don't become appreciated until decades after release, but they'll end up being screwed under any system except the current "lifetime of the author + as long as kids still like Mickey Mouse".

Re:Exponential Growth

[itsme1234]

Also there should be a non DRMed copy left in escrow with some state organization if they plan to distribute the work in any digital form and they want any copyright protection to it. Today "they" can remove your book from your "shelf" (ebook reader) remotely, they can limit where you read it, kill your "first sale" rights (you can't resell or loan a kindle book), they can make books "expire" from your reader. Most current incarnations of DRM are today broken and this is why everybody focuses on laws and lawsuits but tomorrow DRM might work "well enough" to prevent you from accessing even stuff without copyright.

Re:Exponential Growth

[Lucky_Norseman]

No. a DRMed copy should be more like a trade secret.
Whwn you invent a new industrial process you have a choice to either patent it and let the world know how it is done or keep it a trade secret and forever give up the patent protection. If someone else figures out how it is done, they can use the process freely.
Similarly you should have a choice to either give it out openly with copyright protection or use DRM and forever give up the protection of copyright on that work.

Re:Exponential Growth

[rdnetto]

Why not?

Because it adds complexity and bureaucracy. You would need the government to maintain a database of when each work was created and how many payments have been made. There used to be a requirement for copyright registration that was abolished because of the problems it created. This is to say nothing of the added burden it adds to the consumers of such works - you'd have to lookup each work to determine what it's copyright status is.

I suggest a fixed copyright term, perhaps 15 years. No extensions*, no dependency on the creator's lifespan, no dependency on its value. We don't have this crap for patents (why are usually licensed by a more sophisticated demographic), so why would we need it for copyright?

* Yes, I know that patent extensions are allowed, though I don't believe there is a need for them.

Re:Exponential Growth

[rdnetto]

Why not?

Because you don't want Disney causing runaway inflation just to keep Mickey out of the public domain.

If Disney can cause runaway inflation, you have bigger problems. This is like saying that you can't upgrade the network connection, because then the malware would spread faster than it could be removed - something is fundamentally wrong.

Re:Exponential Growth

[Anonymous Coward]

I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your exponentially priced newsletter.

Re:Exponential Growth

[Hentes]

Because it would give the big studios an unfair advantage.

Re:Exponential Growth

[CODiNE]

Ignore the insightful mods, it was meant to be a joke. The law of unintended consequences is what I'm referring to there. A nice sensible formula was presented, but inflation wasn't accounted for... I invent a silly doomsday scenario for it.

Could Disney alone destabilize the global economy? Doubtful. Could all the large movie studios, book publishers and other content owners pull it off? Most likely.

About network connections and malware removal... read up on the Morris worm.

Re:Exponential Growth

[Roger Lindsjo]

How would it give them a bigger advantage today? When they want to get longer copyright today they lobby for 10s of millions of dollars and get longer copyright for all their works. With the proposed solution they would actually have to think if extending past 30 years. Even the Harry Potter series have currently brought in less than $10 000 000 000, extending past 40 years for 8 times that amount would probably not be wise.

Re:Exponential Growth

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Because you don't want Disney causing runaway inflation just to keep Mickey out of the public domain.

Don't care that. They make enough money of new content, so they can easily release the old one.

Re:Exponential Growth

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you make that work internationally? It seems to me to have (at least) two problems as a replacement for Berne: firstly, that different countries have different economies, so $10 isn't worth the same everywhere - but if each country sets its own exponential rates the multinational labels will go forum shopping, so it penalises indies; and secondly, that each country would need to maintain a register which anyone in the world could access.

Re:Exponential Growth

[stooo]

>> Because you don't want Disney causing runaway inflation just to keep Mickey out of the public domain.

Not relevant. Disney makes far enough from new content, they can ditch the old one.

Re:Exponential Growth

[stooo]

>> Because it adds complexity and bureaucracy. You would need the government to maintain a database of when each work was created and how many...

And ? it's not 1930 any more. We manage HUGE databases every day.

Re:Exponential Growth

[stooo]

>> You would need the government to maintain a database of when each work was created and how many payments have been made.

also, the magic word is "payment". This system pays for itself.
For the database, it's size can be reduced by simply storing a (crytographic) hash of the digital art.

the problem : big countries are advantaged and small ones do not get any payment, as in the patent system.

In my opinion, we should simply hard limit copyright to 10 years. that's fair and far enough.

Re:Exponential Growth

[CODiNE]

Tell THEM that.

Re:Exponential Growth

[alexo]

Why not?

Because that would practically limit copyright to the rich, which in today's American system means corporations.

Re:Exponential Growth

[rdnetto]

And ? it's not 1930 any more. We manage HUGE databases every day.

>> You would need the government to maintain a database of when each work was created and how many payments have been made.

also, the magic word is "payment". This system pays for itself.
For the database, it's size can be reduced by simply storing a (crytographic) hash of the digital art.

the problem : big countries are advantaged and small ones do not get any payment, as in the patent system.

The problem with the database isn't the requirements it places upon the government, it's the requirements its places on the consumers and creators. The reason the requirement was abolished is that creators frequently failed to register all their works, and consequently didn't receive legal protection for them. This problem would be even greater today - can you imagine having to individually register every slashdot comment and youtube video you post?

When creators and consumers have to lookup each work individually to determine whether or not it's in the public domain, that places a great deal of friction upon the creative process. The advantage of a fixed term is that you can print 'Copyright ACME Studios 2010' on the work and it will be a given to any consumers of it that the term expires in 2025.

The technical problems of using a mere hash of the work are obvious, given the inaccuracies of Youtube's content detection algorithm. Besides, it would be far better for society to store verbatim copies of the works which would become accessible upon expiry of the term.

In my opinion, we should simply hard limit copyright to 10 years. that's fair and far enough.

In other words, you effectively came to the same conclusion as be, albeit with a difference of 5 years.

Re:Exponential Growth

[Zeromous]

> Could all the large movie studios, book publishers and other content owners pull it off?

Just wanted to point out that these industries are the not the Titans they purport to be on TV. I'm willing to bet that if they tried a content cartel the world economy would barely notice. A trillion dollars is chump change in the world economy these days.

Re:Exponential Growth

[smitty777]

There is one - it's called (Mod +1 Insightful)

Re:Exponential Growth

[fuzznutz]

No, it ensures valuable copyrights will last longer.

That's the whole point. There are untold millions of works that are tied up in copyright that are inaccessible due to the fact that nobody know who owns the copyrights. The works are not economically exploitable under the current copyright system. If a work is valuable, let them profit from it for a reasonable amount of time. If it is not, let it fall into the public domain and maybe someone else can profit from it or just enjoy it without fear of lawsuits.

Besides, under the current system there is no realistic cutoff date for copyright. Disney may hold rights for 30 years under a progressive system like described, but they won't do it for 40. As it currently stands, they hold rights indefinitely for almost no cost at all.

Re:Exponential Growth

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to see a variant of this;

You get Copyright for free for a period of, say, 15 years after publication. After that, you have to pay either a fixed amount, or a percentage of gross revenues from a specific works, whichever is higher, each year, to keep copyright. Something like 5 000 USD or 5% of gross revenues, whichever is higher.

This would solve the problem of huge media corps pushing the expire date forward every other decade, as well as solve the "orphan works" problem. If it's worth it to keep copyright after 15 years, then you pay the fee. If you can't, though, well... Then the commercial part is finished and the works fall to public domain. :)

Does this mean crappier story-telling?

[Anonymous Coward]

I like movies, sorry but what you're suggesting kills off a product that I can really appreciate.

Re:Does this mean crappier story-telling?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is that killing of the product?

copyright laws are worthless

[arbiter1]

They can only be enforced in country they are passed in and internet in itself is its own country with no laws what so ever cause not 1 countries laws can apply to it.

Re:Of course!

[CrystalFalcon]

In the reality where I live, GNU/Linux and Wikipedia have been proven to exist despite explicitly renouncing the copyright monopoly and encouraging copying.

Imagine there's no copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can't do it yourself, there's a book for that. Read Imagine There Is No Copyright and No Cultural Conglomorates Too.... PDF, 82 pages, free download -- obviously.

So yes, Falkvinge has a point.

Re:Imagine there's no copyright

[smitty777]

He has to have a point, because Joost Smiers wrote a book? BTW, did you notice one of his other books is on sale on Amazon for $104.00 USD? I'll bet he has a copyright on that baby.

Ya don't have the right

[Stan92057]

Ya don't have the right to take, use, anything you don't own. Ya cant give away things you didn't make or own. And that includes other peoples ideas as well. SOPA is going to pass because our government will not allow theft digital or other wise. Now everyones going to pay. Good jobs ya bums.

Re:Ya don't have the right

[sjames]

I own a copy of some music. You like it? Let me MAKE you a copy! :-)

BTW, ideas are explicitly NOT granted any sort of legal protection.

Re:Ya don't have the right

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean by take? What do you mean by own? How do you make or own an idea?

Re:Ya don't have the right

[AK Marc]

It's about whether you own my thoughts. Copyright is thought police. If you invent something (a song, a program, whatever) and someone else think it is like theirs, then you are a criminal. The two solutions are to change the rules or never invent. Enough are picking the second option that the world would be better offf without any IP laws at all (though I like trademark, it's an anti-fraud law with squatters rights).

Re:Ya don't have the right

[swilver]

One wonders how you learned to write at all with this philosophy, as I'm sure it wasn't your idea.

Re:Ya don't have the right

[Stan92057]

spoken as a true troll. good job!

Re:Ya don't have the right

[smitty777]

BTW, ideas are explicitly NOT granted any sort of legal protection.

Really? Than what are intellectual property rights?

Re:Ya don't have the right

[sjames]

Protections for a particular embodiment. That's why you can copyright a murder mystery, but you can't copyright the butler being guilty. You can patent an idea as reduced to practice, but not the idea itself (supposedly, USPTO hasn't don a good job upholding any of the requirements lately).

Using copyright for the Right things...

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with copyrighting isn't in the fact that people aren't obeying the laws in regards to it, it's the fact that companies like the RIAA are seeking to make disporportionate profits from what they're selling. Consider some nameless but popular artist who's talented and popular. So they make a hit song, record it, have it mixed, post-production blah, cd cover design and all that. Now, does that take the artist 20 million dollars worth of effort to do? Yes, their talent is special and unique, we wouldn't want them to stop making music but is their pay proportionate to what they put into it? Even with my favorite artists, I'd have to give that a "no." I know professional musicians and I know how much effort they put in but at the same time, there are people I know in every field who put in that much and don't make millions -- and yes, with an end-result that yields something talent-filled, personal, and heartfelt as well (I'm not comparing distinctly different things here).

This is inherent in the film and recording industries. They're like a bunch of used car salesman selling a bunch of used 1980 Hondas for 30k each. And now that they've done such a great job of stealing money out of our pockets, they have a problem when we do the same to them...

So it doesn't feel so good, does it? F***ing deal with it...WE did!

Re:Using copyright for the Right things...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you reach a level of popularity that borders on lottery-winning luck, you will not see millions from your label contract. The labels may steal from the consumer's pockets, but they are also throttling the money out of the artists naive enough to sign to them.

not totally ridiculous, just too much

[tverbeek]

The assumption that no one respects copyright laws is wishful thinking, extrapolating from "none of my friends" or "no one I know" to assume that everyone thinks that way. It's incorrect.

I respect copyright, for one. So do many people I know, including - not coincidentally - a lot of musicians, writers, artists, and actors. Not just as it applies to their own work, but as it applies to others' work. It isn't just faceless corporations on one side of the debate, and people on the other.

I used to ignore copyright... until I started producing works of my own, and realized that the effort that goes into creating a really great song, an entertaining movie, a well-crafted story, or a well-rendered illustration deserves compensation. I also happen to think that copyright terms are ridiculously long, and often too restrictive. But those problems don't negate the worthwhile goal outlined in the US Constitution: to promote the arts by giving creators temporary control over their work.

Re:not totally ridiculous, just too much

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish everyone else could have this epiphany.

Re:not totally ridiculous, just too much

[FroBugg]

You touch on another flaw in the original article's reasoning: By eliminating copyright protection of all kind, you make it harder for people to reward the original artist.

Right now, people who want to get a copy of a work for free know what they're doing. They're going to Pirate Bay or some other website instead of Amazon, while people who are happy with paying artists can do so relatively easy (how much publishers are taking is another issue). If you were to eliminate attribution requirements, I'd be free to republish your works on Amazon uncredited or even (depending on the laws that do remain) claim them as my own. Now people have to do additional research to determine just who the actual artist is and whether they're rewarding the right person. Your legal recourse may be limited.

Re:not totally ridiculous, just too much

[Anonymous Coward]

Assumptions based on how a copyright-free system would work based on how a system with copyrights that are ignored works may not be valid.

If digital property rights are abolished, say goodbye to Pirate Bay. Say hello to a single icon to download _every piece of software, music and video in existence_, paying a pittance per GB downloaded with a little bit of overhead for hacking away DRM. The current "Whoa, artist X is selling this for what-I-want-to-pay! That's cool! I'll pay a bit extra!" novelty would go away.

Re:not totally ridiculous, just too much

[king neckbeard]

I used to respect copyright somewhat, but as I engaged in more creative activities, learned the realities of the economics of copyright. and became aware of the history and philosophy behind copyright, I began to grow more and more opposed to it. TFA points out how it really is an outdated notion using the economic tools that fit in the era of guilds but not today.

As for 'deserving' compensation, that's a laughable idea. Effort itself doesn't deserve compensation. In order for me to make money, I have to be doing something that something is willing to pay me for. Even copyright doesn't give direct compensation for effort, and the sensible principles of US law demonstrated in Feist v. Rural mean that even for getting the copyright monopoly must provide something besides just effort, namely originality.

Re:not totally ridiculous, just too much

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't make an argument about attempts to "reward the original artist" while at the same time dismissing the interference of publishers and other copyright heavyweights.

I'd argue that publishers are putting up works on Amazon, claiming them as their own, and collecting money from the consumers that actually are trying to reward the original artists. So your worst-case scenario is already happening, plus we're stuck with the downsides of copyright.

And that's not even getting into ASCAP and the like, who have actually sued to prevent music users from bypassing their monopoly and negotiating directly with the copyright holder.

Re:not totally ridiculous, just too much

[Anonymous Coward]

It does deserve compensation, but legally preventing other people from copying it is an incredibly bad way to do that.

Re:not totally ridiculous, just too much

[Anonymous Coward]

Only real payment structure, pay per hour.

Need a good music piece pay more, doesn't need to be as good pay less.

Same things goes for programmers, craftsmen etc..

Re:not totally ridiculous, just too much

[ausrob]

Heh, the keyword is temporary. The problem is that today's laws mandate anything but temporary control. By the way, it's a scope that applies to *all works*, not just the profitable ones, which is part of the problem. A song or book written decades ago, but which generates no income (so is not worth much to the original author) can't be freely improved upon. Do the original artists deserve (in perpetuity) to gain income off the efforts of others who have borrowed from their ideas? That doesn't seem realistic to me. Yet that is what we have today.

Re:not totally ridiculous, just too much

[Anonymous Coward]

By eliminating copyright protection of all kind, you make it harder for people to reward the original artist.

How do I - with current copyright protection - reward the artist behind a recording owned by a RIAA-label? Easier than with no copyright?

Buying a CD will give money to his captors, enabling them to fucking him over even more. That is not a reward.

Re:not totally ridiculous, just too much

[metacell]

I used to ignore copyright... until I started producing works of my own, and realized that the effort that goes into creating a really great song, an entertaining movie, a well-crafted story, or a well-rendered illustration deserves compensation.

For me, it has worked the other way. Writing creatively has made me realise that I'm unlikely to make any huge profits even if I become very good at what I do, and the most important thing is to be read and enjoyed by people.

Re:not totally ridiculous, just too much

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you suggest a good one?

Didn't think so.

Re:not totally ridiculous, just too much

[smitty777]

getting the copyright monopoly must provide something besides just effort, namely originality.

I think you really hit the nail on the head with this one - after all, it would be impossible by definition to copyright something that *wasn't* original. I also agree that effort is a de-coupled issue. The copyright doesn't care whether it was easy or hard for you to come up with your idea. But, whether outdated or not, it is the only means of protection an artist/scientist/whetver has at the current time.

Re:not totally ridiculous, just too much

[fuzznutz]

You sir, have hit the nail on the head. The copyright apologist sector has attempted and occasionally succeeded in brainwashing the public in thinking that "creative works" authors and their children and their grandchildren somehow deserve compensation in perpetuity for a one time effort. In fact, it is somehow so important that they are willing to wish bankruptcy on those who disagree with their position and do not wish to participate in its madness. It is not coincidental that there is such a backlash against it. GoDaddy suffered enough in their business that they had to retract their support for more insanity in the copyright laws.

There will always be the button down, law-and-order types that support any law regardless of popular support, but copyright is becoming like the speeding laws of the new millennium.

Re:not totally ridiculous, just too much

[king neckbeard]

You seem to be assuming that authors need additional protection or that the protection is useful to the ordinary author. Also, you are ignoring that copyright is about the public's interests, with benefits to authors and publishers being incidental. "Something must be done. This is something. This must be done" is poor logic.

Re:not totally ridiculous, just too much

[smitty777]

How is it for public interests (not being facetious, I'd really like to know)?

Re:not totally ridiculous, just too much

[king neckbeard]

The full title of the statute of Anne, generally regarded as the first modern copyright act, was "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned." In the US Constitution, the power given to Congress is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" and the means of doing so are "by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

The notion is that the public waives certain parts of their freedom to copy for a short while. This investment of our liberties is supposed to (in theory) result in more works being produced. Thus, copyright is a trade off between two public interests: enjoying books and having books to enjoy. Those are the two factors to be weighed here when considering policy. Granted, our current policy has completely lost sight of this, so much of the public is unaware of this, and legislators rarely if ever gives serious consideration to the public's interests, when it is the only factor that matters on the issue.

Re:not totally ridiculous, just too much

[smitty777]

Hmmm...interesting. I've never thought about it like that before. So, basically it says that the government will protect your ideas to encourage you to make them (and profit from them) in the short term so we can all benefit from them later.

Re:not totally ridiculous, just too much

[king neckbeard]

Yeah. It's a rather sad state of affairs how many people this is a new thought for. Indeed, it wasn't until I took a class on copyright law that the original philosophical underpinnings of copyright were known to me.

Re:not totally ridiculous, just too much

[snadrus]

Well some art is "made" by copying. Shakespeare told almost no original story, but vastly improved the way ancient ones were told. Disney too.

There's Not Enough Lawyers!

[tunapez]

I was just reading about this in Lessig's book, "Free Culture" today. I can't recommend the book enough!
I never knew Walt Disney's Steamboat Mickey infringed on Steamboat Bill, Jr which infringed on the song Steamboat Bill. Ironic, isn't it? Too bad the madness isn't stopping anytime soon...

Re:There's Not Enough Lawyers!

[smitty777]

It's also interesting (and somewhat ironic) in it's relation to the Mickey Mouse Copyright act. They have real chutzpah if you ask me. Thanks for the link - great refs.

Ahem, FCC? Yeah, could you read this....

[TiggertheMad]

Commercial Regular Rotation for Rock, Alt, Urban (8 weeks) R&R indicator stage 1 (small markets - 10 stations) .$ 15000 R&R indicator stage 2 (medium & small markets - 25 stations) $ 30000 Regional (non-charting) (10-15 stations) $8000 BDS Promotion (7-10 stations) $15000

This looks like it was cut and paste from some sort of official spreadsheet or list. Wasn't there a massive antitrust lawsuit back in the 1970s where the government came down down hard on Pay for Play radio stations? The snippet I pasted above looks to my untrained eye like prices for playing singles. Could you expand on where you got this info, DCTech?

Re:Ahem, FCC? Yeah, could you read this....

[king neckbeard]

Payola still exists. There are two ways I know of on how they get away with it. One is that they subtlety say that they are being paid to play it (it's legal if you are honest about it). The other is the use an intermediary to avoid direct liability. Of course, that results in another middleman that adds more overhead.

Re:Ahem, FCC? Yeah, could you read this....

[Marc_Hawke]

Wait a minute? What about all the 'small' radio stations that are always getting pressed for 'royalty' money because they are playing these songs? We hear it all the time, "These stations need to pay for the right to play this music." and they keep asking for MORE money. However, this list is the opposite. The artist is paying for the right to be on the radio.

Who the crap is getting all the money? How can they take money from one side saying 'get us on the radio', and take money from the other side saying 'let us put that on the radio?' Does it really cost $15,000 to collect royalties from a popular song?

I guess this is to get your song on the radio when it isn't popular. Still seems kinda fishy that someone collects money from both sides like that.

Re:Ahem, FCC? Yeah, could you read this....

[KiloByte]

that results in another middleman that adds more overhead.

They already add hundreds of middlemen at different stages to avoid taxes and paying royalties to the artists. Most of works robbed by both MPAA and RIAA are officially in red even when a resounding commercial success. They want this overhead as it gives another opportunity to weasel away some of the gains.

Re:Ahem, FCC? Yeah, could you read this....

[Anonymous Coward]

who is getting it? The like of Murdoch or others in positions of power.

I knew a Radio DJ in NZ who was quite successful. He created mini jingles for the middle of his show, but a company he wholly owned, owned those jingles. Then every time he played his own jingles on his own show, his company gets paid a royalty.

Genius.

Re:Ahem, FCC? Yeah, could you read this....

[delinear]

This is the kind of "creative accounting" people talk about that both the music labels and movie studios use to screw money out of both the customers and the artists. They really are parasites on society, I wish more artists would realise that the man on the street is their ally, not the big money studio - together we could cripple their power and reduce them to what they always should have been, the people who move the money around and make stuff happen not the people who syphon large chunks of it off undeservedly.

Re:Ahem, FCC? Yeah, could you read this....

[Stan92057]

Its the "Man on the street" Thats stealing the musicians music. At least with a label they MAKE money. You really do have it backwards.

Re:Ahem, FCC? Yeah, could you read this....

[shark72]

The amorphous "they" is actually two sets of organizations, who are often at odds with each other.

Record labels, of course, make money by selling recordings. They spend money to promote music with the express goal of driving sales.

BMI and ASCAP are performance-rights societies run by and for artists. They are part of the music industry, but not the recording industry. It is BMI and ASCAP who collect these royalties from radio stations. While most of the money goes to the artists who are played the most, distribution is equitable, and a reasonably successful artist (that is, not a superstar) can often still make a couple of hundred bucks a months from performance rights. This is money that the record labels don't see, unless the artist has signed with a publisher that happens to be owned by a record label (Warner/Chappell comes to mind).

Since BMI and ASCAP are run by and for artists, they are generally considered to be the "good guys," as they offer opportunities for artists to make money that's not dependent on music sales or even having a recording contract. The exception is when we hear a story of BMI/ASCAP actually attempting to collect this money -- like coming down on a business that refuses to purchase a BMI or ASCAP license. Then -- at least per popular opinion here on Slashdot, they tend to be thought of as bad guys, like the record companies.

http://www.elza3em.com/vb/t11388.html

[aminbahgat]

2012 10-1-2012 http://www.elza3em.com/vb/t11388.html

Re:Of course!

[AK Marc]

If the laws against stealing were repealed tomorrow, would you start robbing stores daily? I don't need a law against murder to not murder. The fact you do indicates you are mentally ill, not that laws are the only things keeping the population civilized.

Re:Of course!

[Anonymous Coward]

What about his "an?"

I don't get it.
What is an "an" and how does he posses it? Can I have an "an" too?

...oh, you mean you are and can't seem to remember that you're is a contraction - where the apostrophe replaces the a and the space....

Hmmm. Idiot?

You keep using that word - I do not think it means what you think it means!
Somehow the Idiot appears to be the parent, not the GP

Also,

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, this just in from the NAMBLA president: "Laws against raping young children ridiculous".

Re:Also,

[metacell]

Now, if we could only get people to trade the pictures of said child rapes on the Internet, the profit would go out of the industry, and all child pornography producers would be forced to shut down, thus eliminating child pornography.

Or at least, that's how it works according to the proponents of copyright.

Fascism and Monarchy are ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Monarchy is why the founders of the USA hesitated to have patents. Under the British monarchy, they became rediculous. Fascism in the USA is why copyrights have become rediculous here.

Boot out the kings and the fascists, reinvigorate the revolution, and IP laws will stop being rediculous. Don't just work around the bugs. Go to the source and fix them.

To those who answer "not totally ridiculous"...

[leifb]

Please, I'm begging you: stop trying to negotiate as though the other side was rational and honorable, and would honor any agreement for the long term.

That's how they get us, every time. They pretend that they'll act like human beings, and then they push for more. Every time. Because that's what sociopaths do: they see the pie and they want it all. And they're willing to be patient if it gets them what they want. And make no mistake: what they want is the whole thing, forever, and every one of us paying them, regardless of how much we use or enjoy.

The only way to counter that is to act as irrationally, and in the other direction. It's not that there can't be a sane middle ground; it's that as long as we advocated for a sane middle ground, we got extended and renegotiated into the current situation. If we keep trying to negotiate for a sane middle ground, we're the ones to blame when the next Mickey Mouse preservation act passes. We're the ones to blame when the public domain starts to shrink. We're the ones to blame, until we start acting as sociopathic as corporations, including being so utterly charming that our point of view seems as reasonable as theirs, so the sane middle ground must be the right compromise.

Re:To those who answer "not totally ridiculous"...

[king neckbeard]

I wouldn't say that abolishing copyright is irrational, but you are correct in that a moderate stance isn't sustainable. Moderate copyright monopolies aren't sustainable, and those that benefit will push for more and more and more. Boldrin and Levine put it better than I could in Against Intellectual Monopoly

Given that it may well be the case that some modest degree of intellectual monopoly is superior to complete abolition – why do we set as a goal complete elimination of intellectual property? Our position on intellectual monopoly is not different from the position most economists take on trade restrictions: although some modest amount of protection might be desirable in special cases, it is more practical and useful to focus on the elimination of restrictions as a general rule. Similarly, while some modest amount of intellectual monopoly might be desirable in very special cases, it is more practical and useful to focus on the elimination of intellectual monopoly as a general rule. In innovation as in trade, a modest degree of monopoly is not sustainable. Once the lobbyist's nose is inside the tent, the entire lobby is sure to follow, and we will once again be faced with a broken patent system and absurdly long copyright terms.

Re:To those who answer "not totally ridiculous"...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Once the lobbyist's nose is inside the tent, the entire lobby is sure to follow, and we will once again be faced with a broken patent system and absurdly long copyright terms."

Nice of them to use allegories that even children can understand. Their actual value as arguments are pretty questionable. What does the sentence even mean? You should abolish copyright completely - and then discuss exceptions at a later stage - rather than vica versa because in that case the lobbyists are entirely outside of the tent, but if you discuss exceptions first, then the lobbyists are inside the tent in full force?

Re:To those who answer "not totally ridiculous"...

[metacell]

It means that if you grant a limited copyright, the corporations that benefit from it will lobby to extend it more and more, until we're stuck with ridiculously long copyright terms and a very limited definition of fair use again.

They'll use the very money they earn from the copyright monopoly to grow strong and fund the lobbyists that give them even longer copyright.

Re:To those who answer "not totally ridiculous"...

[Agent0013]

Well, if the corporations feel that they can "steal" from the public domain by extending copyright past what it was when the work was created, then I feel that I can steal from them. In fact, I feel it is the moral thing to do. Paying for the works owned by immoral companies is wrong as you are giving money that will then be used to steal more from society.

"You wouldn't steal a car, would you?" . . . Yeah, right! Such hippocrites.

Re:To those who answer "not totally ridiculous"...

[metacell]

Pirating is not justified - it's a duty.

Not exactly

[Weezul]

Copyright laws evolved from the British crown outsourcing censorship.

Copyright has really always been about the powerful controlling the flow of information. Check out around 12min into Falkvinge's Google Tech Talk.

Originally copyright only applied to organizations because you needed money to own a printing press, but now that anybody can copy, they conveniently forget that disorganized copying cannot compete with institutionalized distribution, ala iTunes, and attack individual copying.

Is there any doubt why they're passing SOPA/PIPA this year? It's WikiLeaks, Hacktivism, the Arab Spring, the European Summer, OWS, the possible African Spring, and the coming stronger protests.

Woah, really?

[Zorque]

The pirate party isn't satisfied with copyright laws? In other news, right-wing leaders claim the government is spending too much money and left-wing leaders claim that not enough is being done to help the poor.

Re:Of course!

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time I checked, neither GNU/Linux nor Wikipedia were in the public domain.

They are both governed by their respective licenses, which means they actually depend on the copyright system (or copyright monopoly, if you prefer to call it that way) in order to function as their owners intended.

Re:Of course!

[fierce]

If the laws against stealing were repealed tomorrow, would you start robbing stores daily? I don't need a law against murder to not murder.

You know, unfortunately, there are lots of people who would.
That's why we can't have nice things. >_<

authors and inventors

[SgtChaireBourne]

The problem with this is that many copyright holders are corporations, and it's rather rare that they die.

There's the problem. The copyright section from the U.S. Constitution has been quoted many times in this discussion and on others with emphasis added but here's a new emphasis: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Most of today's "rights holders" are not the creators. Instead of quibbling over duration of copyright, just make the rights non-transferable. That would really get fought tooth and nail by big media, but it strikes at the heart of the matter.

Re:authors and inventors

[hacksoncode]

Wouldn't change anything, so why bother? Big media would just enter into contracts with the artists that had exactly the same effect, by requiring them to use/enforce "their" copyright as directed by big media.

Re:authors and inventors

[wvmarle]

Bad idea.

As argued many times before, that would make the IP of a company effectively worthless. You can't sell it so you can't put it on the balance sheet as asset. Patents have value: they give a monopoly, allow a company to produce a certain product, and make a good profit on that as they don't have direct competition. Or may license it to other companies and profit in that way. So the mere owning of a patent gives a value to a company, but if the patent is not transferable it has no value when a company goes bankrupt. So no value as company asset. Same accounts of course for copyrights.

Re:Of course!

[swilver]

"If the laws against stealing were repealed tomorrow, would you start robbing stores daily? I don't need a law against murder to not murder. The fact you do indicates you are mentally ill, not that laws are the only things keeping the population civilized." -- quote from Swilver, 2012

I hope it didn't hurt too much.

Re:Of course!

[Anonymous Coward]

ummm GNU/linux exists purely through the copyright laws, GPL is completely reliant on the existence of copyright laws to enforce its "freedoms", no copyright laws no GPL and the whole system would break down. (not that I think that is a bad thing as I prefer the BSD way anyway).

Re:Of course!

[AK Marc]

Everyone else thinks nobody else is nice, yet they think they are the only one they trust. Seems pretty silly to me. If you wouldn't, why would you think everyone else would?

Re:Of course!

[AK Marc]

That's why many places separate out "author's rights" from "copyright" Copying is legal, fraud isn't. You aren't just copying, you are also lying, and that's a crime in most of Europe. Separate from just stealing the words is the fraud of lying to pretend you are not the ignorant prat you are.

Widening the Overton Window

[solferino]

Rick, I'm glad you're saying this. We need to widen the Overton Window in this debate.

I tell my friends I simply don't believe in copyright, full stop. I don't have any qualms in ignoring it. I don't believe in trying for 'reasonable reform'. I only believe in the eradication of copyright monopolies of whatever duration.

Pirate Parties are radical

[Hentes]

I think it's no surprise that after the radicalization of the copyright lobby the Pirate Parties that appeared to counter it also became very radical. The problem is, if they want to win the public that is infuriated by the overreaching copyright laws, they have to offer a viable alternative. But that would require more thinking and intelligence than the "abolish all copyright laws!" mantra.

Re:Of course!

[Hentes]

You might not, but there are many people who already do. Imagine what would happen if all of them were let out of prisons tomorrow.

The purpose of GPL is to enable the customer

[Anonymous Coward]

The purpose of GPL is to enable the customer. And if there is no copyright on code, you can reverse engineer, decompile and then produce your own binaries.

This would only be done by geeks who already do this stuff without the ability to make money off it, so no need for everyone to be a computer code whiz.

These people would also not require you to keep the code secret.

Therefore there WILL NOT be the need for any GPL to keep code open, except for code that is so obscure and unwanted, nobody knows that it exists to decompile.

Re:The purpose of GPL is to enable the customer

[drsmithy]

The purpose of GPL is to enable the customer. And if there is no copyright on code, you can reverse engineer, decompile and then produce your own binaries.

Decompiled binaries are not the same as source code. Your premise is broken.

Copyright infringement is economic theft.

[master_p]

Infringing on copyright is economic theft because it increases the supply of a product beyond what the author desired, resulting in the devaluation of said product.

According to the law of supply and demand, the more supply increases, the cheaper the product becomes. This is no problem if done by the creator of a product, because it would be intentional; but if done by others without the consent of the author, then it violates the author's right to make the product available in a way that maximizes their profits.

The right of an individual or enterprise to sell their product as they see fit is a fundamental human right that relates to economic freedom. If there is no copyright, or if copyright is infringed, this freedom no longer exists.

Re:Copyright infringement is economic theft.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Infringing on copyright is economic theft because it increases the supply of a product beyond what the author desired, resulting in the devaluation of said product."

You can't steal something that never existed in the first place. The first clue that something is screwy here is that it required an act of law to create intellectual property in the first place. It is a fiat commodity and therefore imaginary. This is also no different than saying that I commit an economic theft against La-Z-Boy if I build my own sofa, or commit an economic theft against plumbers by installing my own fixtures.

"According to the law of supply and demand, the more supply increases, the cheaper the product becomes. This is no problem if done by the creator of a product, because it would be intentional; but if done by others without the consent of the author, then it violates the author's right to make the product available in a way that maximizes their profits."

The author's labor is scarce. Copies are not. Modern I.P. law attacks the wrong end of the problem.

"The right of an individual or enterprise to sell their product as they see fit is a fundamental human right that relates to economic freedom. If there is no copyright, or if copyright is infringed, this freedom no longer exists."

The only thing the author owns in this case is his labor. They should negotiate the price of that labor on their own terms. Many artists, authors, musicians, and other creative workers already do. Further, protecting the supposed right of an author or rights-holder to monopolize access to pieces of information they legally control requires curtailing the rights of everyone else to use their own time and energy to duplicate and modify that work for themselves at no actual expense to the original author. The curtailment of those rights is hypothetically without limit. Ergo copyrights and patents are totalitarian by nature and fundamentally unjust.

Re:Copyright infringement is economic theft.

[fuzznutz]

Is it economic theft when a worker receives his layoff notice?

Your supply/demand theory fails because the marginal cost falls to near zero after the first unit is produced. Copyright is rent seeking behavior entirely supported by enforcement of law. Unfortunately the law does not have universal or (possibly) even popular support. Instead of recognizing that the system cannot work in its current form, rent seekers press for greater and greater control and penalties. This creates greater and greater backlash. Their war is already lost, but copyright holders don't yet realize it. An entire generation, perhaps two, flout copyright. Hardliners grow ever more frustrated, angry, and vindictive trying to ruin the lives of those few they pursue over a few songs or a movie that retails for a few dollars. All the while, kids, teens, and young adults don't see a problem with sharing. Hell, I've seen seventy year olds jumping on the band wagon.

The genie is not going back into the bottle.

Re:Of course!

[metacell]

Eliminate laws against stealing, and you can do anything you want! Genius!

Reality: do that and NO ONE will create much of anything. Only fucking douchebag communists think people are that generous with their lives. Usually by force.

Like free software authors. Those douchebag communists!

Re:Of course!

[metacell]

But the GGP suggested that nobody would bother to create anything if it could be freely copied... which is demonstrably false by example of Wikipedia and GNU.

The Rutles

[Wuahn]

It has always angered me that Neil Innes surrendered all of his rights to the Rutles soundtrack because the owners of the Beatles catalog at the time decided it was infringement. It was OBVIOUSLY parody but Neil just didn't have the finances to defend his work.

It All Boils Down To This: Abolish I.P.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no such thing is intellectual property.

I repeat: There is no such thing as intellectual property.

Information ceases to be your sole property the second that it leaves your head, and since the invention of language, once broadcast in any way a piece of information becomes infinitely reproducible, and by their very nature all recordings of any kind, be it written words, pictures, or sounds, are also infinitely reproducible. Improvements in recording and publishing technologies, from woodblock printing, to the phonograph and typewriters, all the way to cassette tapes and networked computers, have made producing and duplicating information increasingly trivial. No form of information is technically scarce.

However, copyright laws and patents achieve their desired ends by attempting to create an artificial scarcity of information through legislative fiat. They in effect commoditize information which is inherently unlike a commodity, giving it scarcity and therefore market value. In the process of doing this however, much of the information's value is lost because its maximum potential utility is curtailed by limiting the number of parties which can use it, and by giving exclusive rights to a certain party over who can retain, utilize, and duplicate a piece of information, information access is effectively monopolized.

This is harmful to the value of information and those who use it, the creation of privileged monopolies over pieces of information practically ensures that they will be abused, and it fails to address the original problem of compensating authors. On the other hand, it confers extraordinary rights and privileges to rights holders who own copyrights and patents, frequently for information which was never created by them personally. Additionally, how is it just that someone should continue receiving compensation for work that they are no longer performing? How is it just that someone should be compensated for work that they never did? The absurdities of patent and copyright law immediately begin compounding on one another after even cursory examination.

Having said that, the act of producing original information and original records of that information can be readily commoditized. It is scarce - only so many people can produce a desired piece of information or a desired record, and from them only so many hours of work can be extracted. It is valuable - the production of new information benefits society, and maximally benefits society when information can be freely utilized by any party. Intellectual property is imaginary, but intellectual labor is a very real service which is the sole property of the intellectual laborer. Its value can be decided, it can be quantified, and it can be sold. Ensuring that intellectual laborers are adequately compensated for their work is of paramount importance to society.

In the case of patentable products which can be produced by industry, or for the processes used to create those products, wherever a patent is applicable, the intellectual laborers working for an industrial company or consortium of companies should negotiate their own pay. If they don't get paid enough, they don't produce work. Auctioning of services, prize competitions, and so on could be used to compensate the inventors for the production of inventions alongside regular contracts. As for the companies themselves, which use the monopolization of inventions to protect themselves from competition, any one industrial company does not have unlimited resources and is therefore incapable of using or producing every available invention. Those companies will still be tasked with producing products as efficiently and effectively as possible, without the purely artificial constraint of copyrights and patents applying to them. They will still have to decide how to best reach the market. The competition will simply be more fierce, and this is entirely desirable.

In the case of cultural artifacts and the recorded arts which can be copyrighted, the above still applies, and

What is you don't use FB, Twitter, ect?

[gatkinso]

I don't have an account on either, but do have a LinkedIn account.

Honestly, both services seem a little immature.

Do people like me not get loans?

Ridiculous?

[JustAnotherIdiot]

And having an entire party circling around breaking certain laws isn't?
Oh wait, no, that's pretty much all political parties, never mind.

No, dbet's comment is about laws

[zooblethorpe]

No one's forcing them to do any of those things. I think we need to get past the idea that if you invest money that you deserve a profit, and any laws that protect that profit are good ones.

Sooooo....isn't that the definition of an investment? Because you're expecting to get some profit? I think what you're proposing would simply discourage people from investing.

Your comment on its own sounds like you're talking just about investing, in a somewhat disjointed way. However, in the context of dbet's preceding comment, it sounds more like you're advocating any law that props up any profit model, which would be horribly destructive to society -- and which many could (and some already do) argue is already much of what's wrong with US lawmaking these days.

The Whole Model Is Broken

[Fned]

Ever since we developed the ability to make copies that have no intrinsic value -- an ability that has never before existed in the history of mankind, I should point out -- copyright, as originally conceived, has been on borrowed time.

Copyright has always been dependent[1] on the intrinsic value of copies, and digital copies have NO intrinsic value. No discussion of copyright, or "intellectual property", or the advance of sciences and useful arts, can be reasonably conducted without addressing this fundamental[2] issue.

1. I don't mean "dependent on" in the hyperbolic way most people do when they mean "the thing following this phrase is kind of important to thing preceding it", but rather in the full meaning of "absolutely cannot function without."
2. ...and I'm not using "fundamental" as hyperbole here, either -- this has really changed things in a way at least as deeply as the invention of the printing press, and hardly anybody seems to understand that.

Internet killed the monopoly star!

[bussdriver]

It was sad when the buggy drivers were driven out of business by the car. Artists may just have to go back a few hundred years to doing it as a hobby and a few lucky ones being able to make it their job. (Not far off from what we have today, only a minority can make a living; without the machine there will be fewer rich artists and more professional artists.)

Shakespeare didn't need I.P. law to survive or crazy high budget productions to give good plays or a massive distribution chain to spread his work. The real need is the endless growth of share price which is what will drive the sociopaths until they can erase "copies" from our brains... (and that won't keep investors happy for long until they can wipe investor memories too.)

If artists get famious they can do quite well off the fame alone-- look at the no-talent morons who are celebrities today due to reality TV! Never ending line of desperate people wanting to be another celebrity.

We have "starving artists" either way and far more hobby artists; how does our system change that??

Isn't that always the case? The ones who benefit from the status quo fight hard against any changes which are perceived as a risk to their self interests... The needs of the many outweigh... sure its not a 'need' but no less of one than their 'need' to make a living with that specific career (hint: horse buggy drivers.)

Re:In other news:

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure you even read the article my friend. The interesting part is where he describes the rationale for not liking it. I think it's pretty obvious that he's against it.

Re:Of course!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, "an" is perfectly acceptable grammar. What you should have been ranting about is "your" instead of "you're", which is a contraction of "you are", as in "you are an idiot"