Slashdot Mirror
Apple Asked Developers To Adopt Subscriptions and Hike App Prices, Report Says (venturebeat.com)
Apple invited a group of app developers to a secret April 2017 meeting in New York's Tribeca district, asking them to move from selling apps at low prices to renting app access through subscriptions, Business Insider reports. From a story: This change is intended to keep users paying for apps "on a regular basis, putting money into developer coffers on a regular schedule," the report claims.
I have to say, as an application user I really don't like recurring charges for apps.
But as an application developer, I realize there is a very real need for recurring revenue. After someone buys an application they can reasonably expect support and updates for a while, all that takes money...
Yes you can and should charge a fair amount up front to try and cover two years of maintenance. But much past that and I really feel like application developers deserve at least some kind of upgrade revenue.
I honestly think trial version support along with some way to demark newer major versions of an app along with upgrade pricing for major updates would fix all this. If a new buyer for an app could be charged $15 while an upgrade user from v3 of the app could be charged $10, it would all work out a lot better... you can rig in-app purchases to kind of work this way but it would be much nicer for all with an officially supported upgrade path.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Sky is blue, water is wet, corporations want more profit. You expected otherwise?
LUDDITE Apple wants LUDDITES to pay with LUDDITE money instead of paying with modern appy app apps! Only apps can app apps!
Apps!
This change is intended to keep users paying for apps "on a regular basis, putting money into developer coffers on a regular schedule," the report claims.
This change is intended to keep users paying for apps "on a regular basis, putting money into Apple's coffers on a regular schedule," the report claims.
This 'rental' business model is complete and utter bullshit, and I don't limit that to computers: it seems like everything is moving in that direction, and I don't see it being good for anyone except the people on the receiving end of the money.
This sounds suspiciously like illegal market collusion and price fixing! Collusion! Fake News!
So nice of Apple looking out for the little guy and giving them additional revenue without taking their usual cut.
Oh wait, no it seems that they want their 30% cut of that too. So a product that has already been released and doesn't require users finding or downloading, Apple is going to take a 30% share of that too? Sheesh, why not just make a variable Apple tax that all users get charged each month so Apple makes their profit margin they want? Isn't 1Trillion enough for them?
Either greed or incompetence.
You want more money.
Or you need it to keep the people on to fix your piece of crap.
The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
putting money into developer coffers
More like putting more money into Apples coffers.
sudo rm -r -f --no-preserve-root /
Why do application developers need recurring revenue from the application?
Because I cannot live forever on $10.
If people want a company to keep developing an application over many years, they need to provide the revenue to do so...
Demanding that the one time you pay for software should pay for $20 years of use is way more of a "fuck you" to the app developer than a recurring payment is...
it doesn't make it a need.
How can you seriously claim there is not a real NEED for more money to continue development after a few years? A company needs employees to be paid, they do not get paid once. They need to keep up with modern devices for testing, that requires laying out cash over time. Web sites and other online resources are paid for over time as well. *ALL* costs for a company are over time, not a single charge only paid for once. So how can you reasonably expect to use software forever without helping the developers out again at some point?
Like I said, I feel like a one time payment that you can expect to cover two years is fair. That way you are not paying for 10 or 20 years that may never happen, but at the same time it's enough of a buffer for the company to reasonably pay for updates and R&D.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Reminds me of that Oatmeal cartoon: guy happily spends hundred of $ on an iPad without thinking, then agonises over the purchase of an app that costs less than a cup of shitty coffee. Why won’t you pay for apps, is it a matter of principle? If you feel there are no apps worth even a cent, you’re probably not looking hard enough. Or at all.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
you can fund the cost of the update from those new sales
I agree with that though I think to some extent you should pan to pay at least in part for major versions through previous purchases already made and not just newer sales.
personally I wouldnâ(TM)t want to pay a subscription fee or pay for major upgrades
I agree about subscriptions but why not pay something for major upgrades? Again it does not have to be full price... that's the way software has worked for quite a long time. I'm not a stickler to do things a certain way jus because they have aways been done that way, but that model seems pretty good and has evolved over a long period of time.
In app purchases are another matter, I donâ(TM)t mind paying extra for extra features. And Iâ(TM)ve been asked often enough to implement a certain feature by someone willing to pay for it... I wonder how well voluntary in app donations would work for this sort of stuff.
That makes me wonder if you could have an in-app donation Kickstarter to fund features, give users a price at which a feature will be developed, some different tiers they could purchase in-app, and some kind of extra reward... only downside is the app developer cannot give back money for an in-app purchase I think, in the case that a feature didn't get enough interest to be developed.
Perhaps there's some minimum level of feature people would get regardless, and the in-app donations were trying to reach another level of capability... with some alternative reward if that level was not met.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
ianal, that sounds rather like a price fixing scheme of some variety to me. I wonder what a lawyer in the appropriate field would think of that
It's a wonder how companies like Broderbund, Sierra, and others survived back in the latter decades of the 20th Century without charging over and over and over for the same game or other piece of software?
Oh, that's right. Programmers back then continued to work on new products to also sell. It was almost like having a job.
And if your software right out of the box requires constant updates, then you sold a defective product, and it is on you to make it right, without making your customer shell out even more $$ to fix your fuckups.
This space unintentionally left blank.
When you "buy" an app it merely allows you access to it which was artificially restricted before. Doing this costs nearly nothing. So it's basically money for nothing. Yes, development has costs but you're not selling your development effort, but restriction removals, totally different thing. There is no economic mechanism to ensure that compensation is adequate to effort. The app that is used by tens of people isn't necessarily takes 10000 more effort than app used by 100000 of people. As long as this disconnect exists people will always be leery to "buy" apps. From economic perspective sales of "wares" that take no effort or materials, like restriction removals, is almost as bad as unlicensed money printing machines.
Can you still get a 16gig iPhone? I have a little over 250 apps on my phone now. A mass adoption of the subscription model would cut that down to a dozen or so. I'd be left with whatever $dayJob is willing to fund.
I've always liked this approach. If the end user doesn't see the need to pay for an upgrade, they are still left with a functioning program.
Exactly, that's why I like that approach also - I think it's reasonable for some people to ant to skip a major update, either for a while until they know it is stable or altogether and wait a few major version changes before updating.
That's why different separate apps for major version updates make a lot of sense to me. I just want to be able to have easy way for a new major version purchaser to pay less if they already bought the previous version (maybe even free if they bought it within a certain window of time).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I basically object to being made to pay for software subscriptions.
I've got enough monthly expenses, etc.
Now, that being said, if I were given an option to re-buy certain pieces of software every 2-3 years, I'd fucking do it in a heartbeat.
I have a piece of software on my phone now, EasyTether. Their sale price was a measly $10. And it's saved me THOUSANDS of dollars in hotel Internet fees over the last 8 years or so. And, every time I upgrade to a new phone (or have to handset swap because of warranty replacement), I simply send them my previous auth code and my new IMEI and they send me an updated auth code.
Quite simply, if the asking price was $20, it'd be a steal. If it was $20 every time I had to move to a new handset? I'd STILL pay it. GLADLY!
But if they switched to a subscription model, where the software just stopped working unless my payments continued?
Nah! Fuck that! I refuse to allow ANYONE that manner of control over me.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Amen brother
The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
>> Why won’t you pay for apps, is it a matter of principle?
Not entirely sure. Maybe it's because I still view my phone as, well, a phone. As long as it does web/phone/text/email/voicerec/maps/basicnetworktroubleshooting/filesystem for free (and I still have free Google Docs subscription from back in the day), it's good enough. If I need to do any real work (beyond an email that I can voice-dictate), I'll pull out a laptop. If I really want to play any games, I'll pull out a tablet (where I do have a small collection of Steam licensed games plus a full library of emulators+ROMs).
Help me out on the flip side: what phone apps are compelling enough to buy?
Other than big name companies, like Netflix, who pays for a subscription to an app?
I'm not, can't imagine many people are.
Programmers now also work on new features on the same product. To offset the cost of development and derive some income from it they can either call it a new 2.0 product and sell it to offset the cost of development, or they can ask for a subscription to help pay for ongoing development and release of new functionality. If your software right out of the box *gets* constant updates that means someone is committed to ongoing development and support. If you think there is any developer on this planet who has released a bug-free product then you are dialed in from somewhere else and you are clearly not a "programmer".
It's a wonder how companies like Broderbund, Sierra, and others survived back in the latter decades of the 20th Century without charging over and over and over for the same game or other piece of software?
That shows either a really bad understanding of technology or an unwillingness to seriously debate.
A) Those are games, which most people play for a while and they drop. It didn't matter if updates didn't follow along for newer OS versions, people didn't expect them past a certain point of time. Exactly as I stated with my thought that you should pa once for about two years of support.
B) Broderbund, Sierra and others used the HELL out of different game engines to produce multiple games. So in fact they DID charge you over and over, where you were basically paying for the same game engine use with new content.
And if your software right out of the box requires constant updates,
It's not that it necessarily requires it; it's that users can reasonably expect continued support through OS updates and new hardware that comes more frequently now. Even back then you still got game updates at times.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
There is no economic mechanism to ensure that compensation is adequate to effort.
Fair price or don't buy. That's an economic mechanism that does all that.
how nice of apple to care for the developers...oh wait, don't apple get a nice share of the proceeds?
Anyway, I remember my first subscription based software, it was an antivirus. You buy the full version, then pay for a yearly update then after a couple of years, you pay full price again. Good thing there was free antiviruses available. I heard windows is about to go subscription, sure glad linux is still free.
I don't mind paying for an app to bypass the ads but to make it a yearly subscription would make me look for something else. True the developers need to get paid but give me something that has added value, not just a refresh look if subscription based.
It won't work because fair price for restriction removal is 0$. And sale is thus still disconnected from development effort.
What the fuck do I care? Why is your business model my fucking problem?
The business model is BOTH our problems, developer and user alike. Because a bad business model either prevents you from getting software you would really like using, or gives you great software that is only around for a year (or less) before dying and going useless, or stopping updates.
Why the fuck would I sign up for a subscription for your software
See here is the part where I am with you, as I described in my first post - as a user I do not like subscriptions either. That is TOTALLY DIFFERENT than the concept of recurring revenue, which as a user I don't mind paying so much in the form of major software releases. I think that's where the confusion came in.
Apps are transactional. If it's free, I'll try it and decide if I care. If it's not free, I better have a good solid reason to believe it's worth it to me.
Exactly why I (and many others) continue to advocate that Apple provide good support for trial versions. To date people kind of hack that by free versions you can in-app purchases to full versions but I find that way more annoying than something like a 30 day free trial for all features.
You're not entitled to on-going revenue from me,
And never said I was; however you the user *are* I feel entitled to around two years of support and (some) improvements for the amount you pay initially.
An app developer should EARN future revenue. But eventually that future revenue has to be there or the business will die and software you might have liked using will fade away.
I am really sad you are so angry about this that you can't even see I was on your side all along, and trying to figure out how companies can stay in business while treating users fairly. But the users have to treat business fairly too at some point, and sometimes I feel like the complaining goes too heavily to the place where users demand infinite updates for free... something that can't go on forever, won't.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
No, that's what some programmers (and mostly managers) think. People don't want programs that constantly change for change sake. See the reception that windows 8 and 10 got. Most people still run 7. Or for a more modern example, the interface changes in Snapchat, or the changes that FB messanger wants to push on everyone (even to the point where they disabled their own debug interface because some hackers had found out how to disable the "stories" functionality).
$0 is not a fair price. I see loony in your username and will stop at that. The restrictions are real and neither artificial nor arbitrary. That's like saying wages are an artificial restriction to slavery - it's not, it's real.
It's a wonder how companies like Broderbund, Sierra, and others survived back in the latter decades of the 20th Century without charging over and over and over for the same game or other piece of software?
Well, this is true. To be fair though, a whole lot of software has the problem of having matured, and done so many versions ago. Typically the number of additional features in the 2.0 release would easily double the 1.0 release, and 3.0 would streamline those and add even more broadly useful features than that. It was an easy sell to have people buy every version.
If I did a bit of research I could likely find a legit answer, but I'm having trouble coming up with even five new features in MS Word between Office 2007 and Office 2016 which I readily use. A four version difference and I can't think of even one occasionally-useful feature? That's software that was in bug-fix-only mode.
Adobe was in the same spot. I still rock my copy of Production Premium CS6 I bought back in 2012, primarily because I'm hard pressed to find even one feature in Creative Cloud that I need...and aside from 4K editing and one or two other random things, CS3 would be just fine. Photoshop, Acrobat, InDesign...basically everything they sell hit maturity at some point in the 2000s.
The examples go on and on of software that achieved success, but got to the point where upgrading every 3rd version was enough. It's tough for many companies to keep their staff paid that way.
Oh, that's right. Programmers back then continued to work on new products to also sell. It was almost like having a job.
Well, this is true. However, new products are always a gamble. Branching out from a core product and providing integration can help to an extent, and sometimes there's a clear market need like with InDesign (when *everybody* hated Quark but also used Photoshop, the DTP market was Adobe's for the taking)...but trying to keep a software company viable to be a place where careers can be made at some point will end up requiring a predatory practice of some kind. Intuit will milk the SMB Accounting cow because they artificially cripple their software after a few years. Oracle is notorious for needing their software installed by lawyers. Microsoft is selling spots on the Start Menu to the highest bidder. Quite simply, the three choices a software company has is:
1. Fold up when the software is done being written.
2. Employ some sort of predatory, artificial revenue stream.
3. Get bought out by another software company, probably one that employs a predatory, artificial revenue stream.
And if your software right out of the box requires constant updates, then you sold a defective product, and it is on you to make it right, without making your customer shell out even more $$ to fix your fuckups.
This, I completely agree with. I don't think anyone is expecting 100% code perfection, but reliable operation and "not being a massive security leak" should be reasons for patches...and by 'patches' I mean "a service pack or two", not "an infinite number of bug fixes".
For the record, I'm very much against subscription-based software for the very reasons you specify. I do, however, understand that software companies who have made their money on mature software are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
As a developer I have absolutely no need of other apps, be it free, paid or subscription based. If I need an app to do task X, I write it myself. It's a win-win situation:
- I don't have to pay a penny. Ever. Free apps are hardly ever usable as their only purpose appears to be to "convince" users to buy a paid version.
- I can have the exact functionality I need.
- I don't have to be afraid that any of the apps will change in 2 months.
- I don't need to worry about my privacy as I am the one controlling my data.
- I know exactly what my apps do in the background.
- I'm not forced to see ads every minute of my life.
- My apps are always optimised and preserve battery life.
- I experience personal growth and become a better programmer.
There is no economic mechanism to ensure that compensation is adequate to effort. The app that is used by tens of people isn't necessarily takes 10000 more effort than app used by 100000 of people. As long as this disconnect exists people will always be leery to "buy" apps. From economic perspective sales of "wares" that take no effort or materials, like restriction removals, is almost as bad as unlicensed money printing machines.
So, it takes little effort to print 10,000 copies of Harry Potter as compared to 1000 copies. So should the next 9000 copies cost nothing? Or, as is more likely, will it merely continue to make more money as they print 100,000 copies? 10,000,000? Are you going to whine and bitch about that as well?
You simply don't get that you have no inherent right to another's labor. Someone wrote it. They own it. They're willing to give you a copy for $10, or allow you to use a copy for $8. The issue I have with subscriptions is that the difference is never great enough to make me want to pay for a subscription instead of buying outright. Even Photoshop - purchasing outright is the better option. It's why I no longer use any Adobe products and have found alternatives.
And to your last point - all redistribution requires effort no matter how minimal. That you value your effort at $0 is your business. In fact, I require some services written, I like your price. You have the job.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Some will, probably enough to keep CRapple going. Not that they need the app developers, but you know CRapple gets a cut, and by moving to subscriptions, they make more, and can plan for future events by knowing a guaranteed source of revenue will come in each month.
We did quite well back then. IMHO it was a lot more fun. I really miss the 80's.
Because I cannot live forever on $10.
Try selling more than one copy of the application!
I'd have no problem with this if it were rolled out like the old model, where:
1. You buy a specific version of an application
2. You are guaranteed bugfixes and minor feature releases for a year or two
3. To get the next version with more features, you have to pay, but you can keep your "old" unsupported version if you want
Of course it probably won't be like this.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Because I cannot live forever on $10.
Neither can the guy who I bought a used Timex/Sinclair 1000 from 30+ years ago. But guess what? That has nothing to do with the price of a computer. And there is no fucking way I'd still be paying him.
11 years ago I was paid $25 for a 10 line Perl script that took about 15 minutes to write, including talking to the client about the requirements. Should I still be getting paid? If that fucker kept sending me payments, I'd be returning them.
If you want residual payments, instead of just saying "need" in place of "want" it might be more effective to look for a business model where it is natural for that to be the case. Businesses love recurring payments, and that implies they should learn something about them. Instead of just fantasizing. In software, that generally means either selling support or making a product where users are willing to pay for data updates. For example, an anti-virus program might reasonably be based on subscription, because the data is the product more than the software itself. Or a chess database program; it makes sense that they sell updated databases every year with new games and analysis. And it makes sense to also offer a cloud-based version of the program on subscription.
There is no reason to think you'd only have to work one time in your life, so there is no reason to even perceive a personal need for recurring payments.
Apple is blurring the lines between software and SAAS.
I expect to pay a one time purchase price for an mobile application that has no additional maintenance besides support for OS upgrades. The developer is going to make those anyway to continue selling their app on my chosen platform. There's no reason I should have to pay just to keep the lights on. Patches should also be included. I paid for a working app, not a bundle of bugs. If you're going to add a bundle of new features and sell it as a "pro" version of the app, or whatever, I'll give it a look, but I may be perfectly happy with my original purchase and have no desire to "upgrade". I'll keep using the one I bought until you stop supporting it, and then I'll delete it an find a replacement that may or may not be your product.
SAAS is a different story. Say I install an app like MLB At Bat. There is an annual subscription for content (similar to buying a season of NFL Sunday Ticket). The app is secondary because what I'm primarily paying for is the content. If the content provider is doing their job then the subscription should cover the cost of the product, product improvements, and patches.
The bottom line is that not all software is a service even though money-grubbing Apple would like to treat it that way.
This is why I still use my Apple II and Macintosh computers - the OS doesn't keep changing and the software remains the same! Good luck developers, you can't get a subscription penny out of me!
To be fair, that era wasn't as bug-free as we'd like to remember. For example, the release of Sierra On-Line's Leisure Suit Larry 4 was riddled with problems at launch, such as the Vohaul virus that got on the production floppy disks and was then used as the master for the commercial release, etc.
#DeleteFacebook
Apple only take 15 percent after 12 months of a subscription. That's the carrot here.
So is software like a thing or an object, where it's the same today as it was yesterday and will be tomorrow? Like a hammer or something?
Or is it more like a living thing that needs to be fed to stay alive, like a dog?
I mean there's some software I still use all the time that I've had since the late 1990s and I don't know how it still works on Windows 2016, but it does. But there's applications I've bought much more recently that I'd like to use, but they don't work anymore because the OS changed in some way and it broke the application.
And then there's some that I don't want to run anymore, they don't do what I need done anymore. Not enough pixels, or not enough SMP, or something about it is inadequate for what I want to do. Or the data it uses it out of date and irrelevant, like an encyclopedia.
I think mostly the software world is in constant flux and it takes a lot of maintenance to keep it running right and doing what's relevant. I'm just disappointed they charge money like they were going to do meaningful fixes and improvements and instead just create monopolies and never tend to the software.
I'm left with a worthless hammer and a mean and unpredictable dog.
And if your software right out of the box requires constant updates, then you sold a defective product, and it is on you to make it right
Even if the updates are mostly to reflect changes in tax law or other externally imposed requirements since the product was shipped? Intuit TurboTax and H&R Block At Home (formerly TaxCut) have annual editions for this reason.
sure we can, we can pirate your shitty software and mock you while doing so.
I'm not so sure about adobe. I've had a couple of photographers tell me they wish they just had the subscription as opposed to their now outdated version of adobe. My wife got the subscription and some of the features she uses to touch things up are made much easier in the LIVE software vs prior years models. I'm sure you could use the prior years and get the same effects, but apparently they have changed it to make it easier.
Not really that into photography but that's what my wife and friends have told me about their experience with adobe.
I still generally agree with your post overall, but their are definitely edge cases.
I made a program that didn't have any bugs.. It is however pretty hard to fuck up "Hello World".
Yeah a Hello World program is not a product but if you were dialing in from another world then I guess it would be in context.
Wow, That was good man.
It's not about writing bugfree software. It's about pricing your software properly to include the cost of bugfixing up front. If you can't do that you're an amateur who doesn't deserve my money.
This is that part of "everybody deserves a trophy" that fucks up society.
4. Develop a product people want and sell it for a price that covers the cost of further development such as bugfixes or desirable content. ...you know, like a professional would.
Right. So how many bugs do you think the purchase price should cover and for how long? Does it cover just the current product or does it include any new bugs introduced as new features are added to the product? Would you be upset if I introduced a new version of the product that included new features but you had to purchase the new version? Or would you prefer to get the product free but pay a subscription in order to access the new features as they're released? And maybe you could ask your mom for some extra pocket money to cover the cost of the subscription so you wouldn't even be out of pocket.
How many years of bugfixes? Are you supposed to sell an app once and support it on all new devices for the next 20 years?
It seems like there needs to be a way to either charge for updates at some point or make it so that someone can't roll all their purchased apps onto their new device indefinitely. It doesn't matter how much you charge, over a long enough timespan the cost of maintenance will eventually be more than the initial price.
Because I cannot live forever on $10.
And because for every Angry Birds, there are exactly 1.29 X 10^97 Applications that fill a particular want or need, but do so for a smaller audience.
You keep on with that "dialing in from another world" my assumption is you have a fair bit of years on me, and don't understand the humor. I'm basically saying "Fuck that, nobody is dumb enough to fall for you bullshit, "app" developers are lucky they find the morons they do tot buy their garbage. I hope this helps :) glhf.
If you develop an application that is worth a damn AND not treat your userbase like the only reason they exist is to give you money, you won't need a subscription model.
One application off the top of my head that fits this description:
Zbrush from Pixologic
Cost me $600 many, many years ago and every update and even upgrades cost exactly nothing for legitimate, registered users.
One could say the pirated / cracked versions also cost nothing assuming you trust the folks doing the cracking to be honorable upstanding types. ( I don't, thus do I pay full price for quality applications I use frequently )
I have been burned too many times when an upgrade / update broke something and rendered the entire platform useless.
I want the option to determine if your application upgrades are worth my support or not.
This puts pressure on YOU to keep developing an application worthy of use vs being lazy because subscription dollars are rolling in.
Oh, funny.
Yes! Keep fucking the Apple lovers! Whooha!
Software's problem is actually that the companies creating it have gotten used to truly obscene profits, and built their businesses around protecting those margins rather than producing a quality product. A company producing a mature program which only needed updating to keep up with changes in the environment in which it ran and the occasional feature request could easily support itself; its owners and employees would just have to accept that they'd make a good living, but nobody was going to be a billionaire.
The owners are shareholders and demand increasing profits, so a subscription model where incremental small changes are released perfectly fits that model, regardless of the value delivered for the subscription cost.
The cost for subscription licences is massively increasing software budgets in my organisation, and the only way to reduce them is to drop users and consequently service delivery. In the meantime these companies are smoothing out revenues streams and reducing pressure to deliver something worth buying every few years - a lose-lose situation for their customers.
Help me out on the flip side: what phone apps are compelling enough to buy?
For me personally:
- WhatsApp: free, but I'd pay for it and might even be willing to pay a small subscription fee for use of the service.
- Air Video: converts and downloads video files for offline viewing. Nice to have when I travel
- I'd pay for a good universal remote control app, though haven't found one yet. (Harmony One is crap)
- Same for a good Smart Home control app. I ended up writing one myself and put it up for sale in the app store
- Offline navigation app.
- I paid for an excellent train schedule app. These days you get that from Google Maps but back then the only options were that app and the official app from the public transport company, which was utter rubbish.
There's more, but this is typically the kind of stuff for which I wouldn't get out my laptop. Sometimes there are free options, but they are not as good... or they are, in which case I'd pay up if the authors actually charged money for their app.
In your case, if someone offered a rather good network troubleshooting tool, wouldn't you pay a buck for it?
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Once again making a book is totally different kind of labor than writing prose for it. There was no connection there until that idea that some publishers should have monopoly to make books with particular content. Monopoly remains a monopoly, no matter the justification. And effort to write a book isn't proportional to number of readers either. Publishers acknowledge it by paying peanuts to most authors.
Hello Wurld
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a difficult battle. - Plato
Still good enough for microsoft.
Once again making a book is totally different kind of labor than writing prose for it. There was no connection there until that idea that some publishers should have monopoly to make books with particular content. Monopoly remains a monopoly, no matter the justification. And effort to write a book isn't proportional to number of readers either. Publishers acknowledge it by paying peanuts to most authors.
And once again, you misrepresent what copyright is. The publisher doesn't have any rights unless the author (creator) grants them some. Self-publishing is a thing, and more authors should maybe go that route.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
But the user wanted it to say "Hello $name" and now it has a buffer overflow.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
In other words, Apple is trying to push people into artificially inflating prices for software in order to increase profits. Sounds like it's time for a gov't investigation of Apple.
Sorry, but that's crap. All businesses which have had huge successes selling something new to the market had to deal with the leveling off effect, and the vast majority kept right on going afterwards. In previous generations those businesses would have been selling objects, and succeeded (often massively) despite the fact that they still had to pay out serious money to keep manufacturing the items they sold, whether there were updates to it or not.
Yes, but there are businesses where there are, for lack of a better term, "de facto subscriptions"- like restaurants and supermarkets, since I will need to eat daily. Other businesses benefit from thermodynamics; cars and toaster ovens and clothing wear out eventually. Perpetually licensed software doesn't wear out, and if I buy it once there's no need to ever buy the same version of the product again.
A finished program's incremental cost is zero, and companies selling them can't make a go of it without sleazy business practices? Really? Do you know how ludicrous that sounds to anyone who's run any other kind of business?
Not ludicrous at all, actually. At some point, everyone who needs a particular piece of software will already have it. The issue is on the demand side - a piece of mature software has only so many customers, meaning that the revenue a particular piece of software can earn will decrease with time rather than increase, and commercial software vendors still need to pay rent and payroll. The incremental cost of a finished program is only 'zero' if the company lays off all its developers and closes its offices and distributes the software on a torrent; even if a piece of software is not developed further but is still sold to the asymptotic client base the company itself needs to remain solvent.
Now, I'm wagering that your response is going to be "so then developers should work on different software!" Well, that works, but only if a development firm can consistently produce disparate pieces of software that are all commercially successful with relatively little overlap. It's an incredible feat to make happen.
Software's problem is actually that the companies creating it have gotten used to truly obscene profits, and built their businesses around protecting those margins rather than producing a quality product. A company producing a mature program which only needed updating to keep up with changes in the environment in which it ran and the occasional feature request could easily support itself; its owners and employees would just have to accept that they'd make a good living, but nobody was going to be a billionaire.
I agree with this to a certain extent, but it is tough to make the raw numbers work. Prior to Creative Cloud, Photoshop cost $699. Let's pretend CS2 was the 'finished' version, with subsequent releases exactly what you describe - Formal Windows 7/8/10 support, a minor feature request here or there, and so forth. Do you think they'd be able to sell de facto service packs at $700 a pop? Let's assume that $600 of that was profit...would everyone buy $99 service packs every few years? Even if everyone decided they would be comfortable with a middle class lifestyle, I'm hard pressed to say that $99 service packs would be enough to keep everyone employed. Let's pretend that $199 would be able to sustain everyone...well, first off that's about the same price as they're charging for CC now, and second, it's high enough for there to be greater expectations on what comes in those service packs, especially since Serif is selling Affinity Photo for $50 outright.
Like I said, we agree that subscription software is undesirable, and it's why I don't subscribe to anything. However, I really don't see how the three options I presented don't describe the majority of outcomes for commercial software vendors.
Are you willing to pay $20 for every security fix, or just prefer to save money and have the app being a gaping security hole on your phone?
Security holes are defects. Defective software should be either refunded in full or patched by the developer at no additional charge, on penalty of being banned from publishing in the app store altogether. This applies not only for security issues but also for any advertised features which do not function properly.
It is reasonable to expect users to pay for new major versions with new features. The old versions should remain usable for existing users who are not interested in upgrading, with no built-in expiration dates or malicious "security updates" which disable existing features. If the platform changes such that the app no longer works (and not because the developer put in checks for specific platform versions—a form of built-in expiration date) then that is a between the platform developers and the user.
The subscription model does make sense for apps which primarily serve as front-ends for centralized network services. In that case you're not so much subscribing to the app so much as subscribing to the service the app depends on, which represents an ongoing expense for the service provider.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Copyright is first and foremost monopoly and censorship institution. Calling it anything else would be misrepresentation. Promoting arts and sciences doesn't logically lead to restrictions on exchange of information while censorship and rent-seeking does.
Security "defects" as you call them are discovered in libraries, communication protocols, CPU's, and other things which the app simply uses. Some stem from bugs, others simply from the fact that more computing power is becoming available - what was not feasible to brute force 10 years ago can be hacked today with a couple of high end GPU's. The fixes are often still needed in the app. Sure, you can say app needs to be supported forever, but you wouldn't be able to afford such an app because it would need a designated developer so that next time there is something like new old TLS being depricated because it's too weak, or there are CPU bugs like specter and meltdown which will allow the attacker to ready any credentials your app is using. Then there is the fact that if the app is using a library which is no longer supported, you need to port the app to the new library because the old one is left unpatched.
Personally, I used to hate the software lease model, but over the years I learned to appreciate it, mostly because it gives the maker incentive to patch and keep things compatible with the world. Today, I'd rather pay $1/month for an app than $20 one time fee.
Security "defects" as you call them are discovered in libraries, communication protocols, CPU's, and other things which the app simply uses. Some stem from bugs, others simply from the fact that more computing power is becoming available...
The app developer chooses the libraries which ship as part of the application. That makes them responsible if there is a defect in the library, regardless of who originally developed it. Security holes in system libraries, CPUs, etc. are still defects, but they aren't defects in the app and so I wouldn't expect the app developer to be held responsible for fixing them. The focus here is on bugs in the app's code and reasonable security expectations as of the time the product was sold. Updating the app to address new threats is more akin to implementing new features than fixing defects.
it gives the maker incentive to patch and keep things compatible with the world
You don't need a lease model for that. If ongoing compatibility is an issue then users will pay for upgrades. The incentive for patching is to maintain one's reputation, avoid liability for security holes in the app, and discharge the reasonable minimum obligations enforced by the app stores. What the lease model gets you is the ability to extract an ongoing, unearned rent from users who are perfectly happy with the existing version of the software and see no reason to upgrade.
Personally—assuming I can't find an open-source application to do what I need—I would much rather pay a reasonable amount up front for indefinite access to a particular version of the software, upgrading to newer versions at my own discretion and expense, than enter into any kind of lease arrangement where my access to the software can be revoked without warning at the developer's whim. I'm in the market for a tool, not a long-term, and typically one-sided, relationship.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Copyright is first and foremost monopoly and censorship institution. Calling it anything else would be misrepresentation. Promoting arts and sciences doesn't logically lead to restrictions on exchange of information while censorship and rent-seeking does.
Great - I still need you to write some things for me. Since you value it at $0 after you write it, why would you value it higher before you write it? After all, information wants to be free, and you have it and I want it and according to you, I should have it. Thanks!
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
So close to having a reasonable discussion. The answer is "it depends". It depends on the purpose of the software. Something like monument is a great game but a big bet for the developers involving many hours of effort by a team. How do you bankroll something like that, who would back something that carries so much risk?
If the sole purpose of your software is to extract money from your customers, then in-app purchases are perfect and there is plenty of background material on how to make apps addictive.
If you have an itch that needs scratching then open source is a good option.
Back in the day I worked for Unisys and they had a software switch in their mainframes (I assume they're not the only ones) that when flipped gave the machine more horsepower. But you had to pay them to flip the switch - not a model I subscribe to.
There is no single right answer but as a professional developer who isn't working for a corporate, who isn't contracting, who is trying to build something of value while raising a family, there are no obvious good choices. I take the approach that whatever I do, there needs to be a fair exchange of value. That means I don't take your email address and sell it, I don't make your browsing history available to Facebook, I don't clip the ticket on payments. And virtue signalling doesn't make you an authority.
Principle and security.
I won't pay for apps because there's no fucking way I'm ever putting a credit card number or any other banking-related information anywhere near a device as insecure as a phone or a tablet. My phone will never have any ability to spend my money or incur debt.
And IDGAF if there's some procedure to get my money back in case of fraud or theft - I don't want to spend days, weeks, or months arguing with customer service drones to get my money back, the time and hassle and annoyance will never and CAN never be compensated for.
Ditto for Microsoft Windows. I'd never log in to my bank or paypal or buy anything on ebay or any other web site from a Windows machine. I have a Win 7 machine for steam (it's a gaming "console" used for games and nothing else, sometimes via my KVM switch and sometimes via in-home streaming to my main linux desktop machine), to play games that won't run on Linux or WINE. I've never bought one game via the Win7 box, and never will, I buy them in a browser on my Linux box.
Also, the vast majority of apps (free or not) are shit - either worthless shit, or less-than-worthless shit with malware and spyware. Out of the hundreds of thousands of android apps, probably only a few hundred at most aren't shit. Any most of those are available on F-Droid anyway.
I don't feel any particular need to look. There's nothing I feel is missing from my phone or my tablet. There's nothing I want it to do that it doesn't already do.
There's probably some way to buy android apps in a browser on my desktop, like I do for steam. I've never cared enough to find out. And it would require me to log in to google in my PC browser and on my phone/tablet (one of my reasons for using microg is so that I don't have to do that) meaning that whatever app I bought would cost me more than just a few bucks, it would cost me my privacy too.
- - - - - - - - -
Any new android device I buy immediately gets unlocked and the stock OS replaced with some AOSP variant plus https://microg.org/ (because GAPPS is spyware and comes with a shitload of uninstallable crap like youtube and google maps and pinyin & hindi keyboards), and F-Droid. For a handful of free apps that are only on google play store, I use YALP.
(Unfortunately, Lineage doesn't enable signature spoofing, which is required by microg, so it typically isn't my first choice unless there's an unofficial version of Lineage for that particular device which enables it)
I'll never own an Apple phone or tablet because they don't allow that option.
How's life in the hypocrite lane?
What those non-sequiturs mean? Fact remains that copyright is that just old medieval censorship institution which was originally meant to ensure that only religiously compliant works will get to be published. Later it got repurposed by publishers to ensure monopoly positions for themselves. I'm not convinced that we should base ANYTHING on this institution. People think it supposed promote arts and progress only due to propaganda by those publishers. Real essence of copyright never changed since medieval times, only branding changed.
Should have used QBasic.
What it means is that your understanding of copyright is sorely lacking. Copyright was a concept really first enumerated in the Statute of Anne in 1710. Everything prior to that you are referring to was nothing more than government censoring and control of business, no more and no less than governmental control of who made castles or tended to the royal horses or who got to "control" various parcels of "royal" lands (everything belonged to the monarchy in many countries)
Copyright as formed by the Statute of Anne took the rights to a work away from publishers and placed it in the hands of creators (solely books in England in 1710, the US copyright clause in 1789 copied the Statute of Anne almost verbatim and incorporated maps and charts in addition to books) You can argue the "evil" of this however you'd like, but unless you are for forced labor your arguments will fail by simple rational logic. Just remember that just about anything created and viewed once can easily and very cheaply be copied these days.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
This is incorrect. If interests of authors mattered then it would be impossible to transfer copyright, or at least it would be limited. Protecting interests of authors don't imply restrictions on redistribution, as well as ability to transfer it. In practice you are forced to transfer rights and it becomes strictly work for hire, so only publishers actually get to enjoy rent. Even royalties are eliminated by accounting practices known as "hollywood accounting". Basically it strictly creates rent, and even author himself will get sued for distributing it in some way someone doesn't like. I don't think people who originally drafted copyright laws were unaware of such consequences. To them it was not a bug but a feature, because it made access to culture and knowledge restricted to chosen few and allowed very few most popular authors to work less while earning more.
Those little physical trinkets really helped give each company its own distinct personality.
I remember back when I started selling online, almost any swag from any of the Ultima games up to then was always a pretty much guaranteed cha ching.
Nowadays, I have no idea (guess I could look it up, but don't feel like it. :p ). I think back in the day, almost anyone trying to sell Ultima related stuff almost always did so hoping to attract the attention of one particular buyer: Fortrandragon.
But alas, it looks like he must have finally retired from active collecting after achieving what I presume is the most holy grail (and not just a grail shaped beacon) of Ultima Collectors.
This space unintentionally left blank.
This is incorrect. If interests of authors mattered then it would be impossible to transfer copyright, or at least it would be limited.
Why do you think so? So I'm going to give you a right, but you can't use it nor profit from it?
Protecting interests of authors don't imply restrictions on redistribution, as well as ability to transfer it.
You'll have to provide some reasoning backing that one. If, once a single copy is distributed, anyone can redistribute at will....
In practice you are forced to transfer rights and it becomes strictly work for hire, so only publishers actually get to enjoy rent.
I guess that's why the Prince catalogue isn't worth anything, Paul doesn't have a hope of regaining control of the Beatles catalog that he sold back in the 60s. Marvin Gaye's family apparently can't (unjustly) profit from his work.
Even royalties are eliminated by accounting practices known as "hollywood accounting". Basically it strictly creates rent, and even author himself will get sued for distributing it in some way someone doesn't like. I don't think people who originally drafted copyright laws were unaware of such consequences. To them it was not a bug but a feature, because it made access to culture and knowledge restricted to chosen few and allowed very few most popular authors to work less while earning more.
You have some other issues to answer before we even go down to this level, IMHO your base assumptions are incorrect and/or unsupported. Until that's addressed, everything else is a useless diversion.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
My base assumptions are that there is no logical justification for existence of copyright. And you didn't even try to prove that it does. There never was an attempt ever beside weakly asserting that "it protects authors", yet even that isn't actually proven but taken on faith. The only way such situation can exists is because it was actually rebranding of medieval institution of religious control. I simply don't believe that there is a reason for copyright to exist and to have a reasonable discussion we need to come from this point. Otherwise it's just religious argument. If you want to build things in rational way you can't have hidden base assumptions like "copyright exists to protect authors" or "restrictions on distribution are connected to author's rights" or that "infinite rent from owning copyrights should exist". Those things need to be proven and they weren't. In fact the way things are going are showing those things are not true.
My base assumptions are that there is no logical justification for existence of copyright.
So you're fine with producing work and others copying it and selling it? So you're ok working for free? Those are the questions you must answer in the affirmative, or you're actually for copyright. And if you do, since you value your work so little, I have some that needs doing.
The only way such situation can exists is because it was actually rebranding of medieval institution of religious control.
Copyright was actually a step away from medieval/religious controls.
I simply don't believe that there is a reason for copyright to exist and to have a reasonable discussion we need to come from this point. ...If you want to build things in rational way you can't have hidden base assumptions like "copyright exists to protect authors" or "restrictions on distribution are connected to author's rights" or that "infinite rent from owning copyrights should exist". Those things need to be proven and they weren't. In fact the way things are going are showing those things are not true.
I'd claim that what you're saying lacks rational thought. What incentive is there for someone to pour a year's worth of thought into a work? Or how about several hundred or thousand people, such as occurs with movies? Or are you claiming that youtube videos are where we should head? How I hope not. I prefer well-written books that come out more than once a decade (pre 1900 novels were slow and few between) or a few movies a year. And no, I won't switch to youtube, twitch, nor anything similar. What you're advocating for is unrestricted copying and distribution meaning that the value of anything that can be digitized would effectively be 0. Of course you could be preferring live theater and performances, which would still be recorded and streamed, since in your world there's no restrictions on such actions.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
So you're fine with producing work and others copying it and selling it? So you're ok working for free? Those are the questions you must answer in the affirmative, or you're actually for copyright. And if you do, since you value your work so little, I have some that needs doing.
Abolishing copyright doesn't lead to work for free. Nonetheless much of creative work is already done based on non-monetary incentives. And most authors already work on strictly work-for-hire basis, with publishers serving as patrons. People are willing to pay for works of art even if access isn't restricted, either as pure donation or to services making access more convenient. And so called "piracy" is the only way of bringing some art stuff to people who can't afford it. If they use only own resources to enjoy it nothing is lost to society. Law must be pragmatic and only pursue issues relevant to society's survival and progress, and maintaining restricted access to some work of art is not a good use of judges' and law enforcement's time.
Copyright was actually a step away from medieval/religious controls.
In "one step forward two steps backwards" sort of way. Copyright is as wrongheaded as slavery. Tracking ownership of intellectual monopolies is about as useless as tracking ownership of people. It shouldn't exist, justification is irrelevant. Whether it's religious control or maintaining monopolies.
I'd claim that what you're saying lacks rational thought. What incentive is there for someone to pour a year's worth of thought into a work? Or how about several hundred or thousand people, such as occurs with movies? Or are you claiming that youtube videos are where we should head? How I hope not. I prefer well-written books that come out more than once a decade (pre 1900 novels were slow and few between) or a few movies a year. And no, I won't switch to youtube, twitch, nor anything similar. What you're advocating for is unrestricted copying and distribution meaning that the value of anything that can be digitized would effectively be 0. Of course you could be preferring live theater and performances, which would still be recorded and streamed, since in your world there's no restrictions on such actions.
In making a work of art the only incentive that works is the process of making it. There must be some logistical allowances in people to cooperate for large scale projects, but they don't require handing out inheritable rents. In fact it only hinders art. If decisions are made by rentier and VCs then only risk-reduced remakes of existing works will be made, no new grounds conquered. Kickstarter and patreon do work for amassing funding, and there you actually pay for the work to be made, not for easing of some restriction. Also, remember, you don't need works of arts for survival or production. So basically involving the state here with heavy handed institution of copyright contradicts Government's raison d'etre. Especially considering that in practice copyright only benefits only the most powerful and vocal artists and companies, and they are the only ones who don't need any help to succeed. They only need copyright to control new entrants so they could safely become lazy without risk of losing their power. This contradicts interests of society.
So you're fine with producing work and others copying it and selling it? So you're ok working for free? Those are the questions you must answer in the affirmative, or you're actually for copyright.
Abolishing copyright doesn't lead to work for free. Nonetheless much of creative work is already done based on non-monetary incentives. And most authors already work on strictly work-for-hire basis, with publishers serving as patrons.
Let's assume that's true for the moment. Why do you suppose that is? Because publishers value the work themselves and wish to spend their money supporting the arts? Or, is it because publishers have a business model wherein they support n creative sources hoping to have a net positive cash flow? And they're successful enough that they wish to grow? And no, I don't like the situation that puts authors in, but facts are facts, and many creators can't afford to do what they do full time on their own.
People are willing to pay for works of art even if access isn't restricted, either as pure donation or to services making access more convenient.
And all girls are princesses and all boys are prince charmings, just waiting for twain to meet.
And so called "piracy" is the only way of bringing some art stuff to people who can't afford it.
Since most music and movies (the 2 most commonly pirated things) make it to airwaves or broadcast/cable TV, your argument falls flat on its face. Piracy is not needed to receive art stuff, only patience is. What piracy accomplishes is that people see/hear what they want when they want, which are what you get when you pay for something. Some will equate piracy with borrowing from the library or renting from a service. It's not.
Copyright was actually a step away from medieval/religious controls.
In "one step forward two steps backwards" sort of way. Copyright is as wrongheaded as slavery. Tracking ownership of intellectual monopolies is about as useless as tracking ownership of people. It shouldn't exist, justification is irrelevant. Whether it's religious control or maintaining monopolies.
Wow, just wow. Tell me, in your world, what's the difference in taking work from someone and freely distributing it and slavery? Or just down-right forcing them to create? Because your world view is a lot closer to what you're attempting to malign the current system with.
I'd claim that what you're saying lacks rational thought.
In making a work of art the only incentive that works is the process of making it. There must be some logistical allowances in people to cooperate for large scale projects, but they don't require handing out inheritable rents. In fact it only hinders art. If decisions are made by rentier and VCs then only risk-reduced remakes of existing works will be made, no new grounds conquered. Kickstarter and patreon do work for amassing funding, and there you actually pay for the work to be made, not for easing of some restriction. Also, remember, you don't need works of arts for survival or production. So basically involving the state here with heavy handed institution of copyright contradicts Government's raison d'etre. Especially considering that in practice copyright only benefits only the most powerful and vocal artists and companies, and they are the only ones who don't need any help to succeed. They only need copyright to control new entrants so they could safely become lazy without risk of losing their power. This contradicts interests of society.
I'd still say you lack rational thought regarding copyright. In fact, your arguments support copyright more than you realize. Take Kickstarter and Patreon for example. The most successful creative projects there are largely based on copyright's protections. People that have succeeded before and have copyrighted material
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Let's assume that's true for the moment. Why do you suppose that is? Because publishers value the work themselves and wish to spend their money supporting the arts? Or, is it because publishers have a business model wherein they support n creative sources hoping to have a net positive cash flow? And they're successful enough that they wish to grow? And no, I don't like the situation that puts authors in, but facts are facts, and many creators can't afford to do what they do full time on their own.
Publishers don't value work at all. They value only rent. This results in cardinally different business strategy than if advancement of art was actually a goal.
And all girls are princesses and all boys are prince charmings, just waiting for twain to meet.
What a silly irrelevant non-sequitur.
Since most music and movies (the 2 most commonly pirated things) make it to airwaves or broadcast/cable TV, your argument falls flat on its face. Piracy is not needed to receive art stuff, only patience is. What piracy accomplishes is that people see/hear what they want when they want, which are what you get when you pay for something. Some will equate piracy with borrowing from the library or renting from a service. It's not.
It dampens your argument even more. If it's free on airwaves then why not let people do whatever they wish with it as long as they use only own resources, such as peer-to-peer networks?
Wow, just wow. Tell me, in your world, what's the difference in taking work from someone and freely distributing it and slavery? Or just down-right forcing them to create? Because your world view is a lot closer to what you're attempting to malign the current system with.
Comparing copyright to slavery doesn't serve to malign it. But merely to show that both involve over broad generalization of notion of property. Slavery is not inherently malign. In fact ancient Greeks would vehemently disagree that it's bad institution. But later it was shown to be counter-productive due to above needless overgeneralization leading to abuses and was abolished. Copyright is on same path.
I'd still say you lack rational thought regarding copyright. In fact, your arguments support copyright more than you realize. Take Kickstarter and Patreon for example. The most successful creative projects there are largely based on copyright's protections. People that have succeeded before and have copyrighted material can build on that for new projects, or build off their success with new projects. How many projects (purely in the creative areas) from total unknowns are successful? Note that I'm excluding projects that offer machines (items with a real or perceived use vs creative works that are meant to be enjoyed as they are)
How come they're based? People who actually care about this stuff only "buy" it to explicitly support creators, the rest pirate it. Exactly same situation would result if copyright were abolished.
But rather than just poke holes in your arguments all day, which is simple enough to do, there are some positions that could be taken to be helpful. Notably,
I personally think the entire "for life of author" clauses are semi-interesting and could be used to address some of the issues you may agree with. I do not agree with the "plus 50/70 years" addendum, although there should be a minimum length. My view is that both of these could be handled by 1 clause - should the original author sell (tr
Publishers don't value work at all. They value only rent. This results in cardinally different business strategy than if advancement of art was actually a goal.
Now your on a "what is art" tear. Let's stick with the issue. Publishers do value work, based off of profit they can earn. There are artists that value their work based off of the profit they can earn. Others value their art purely for itself. Many artists are somewhere in between, creating more art because they can earn something in return. Are you going to argue that only those that value art purely for itself are "true" artists?
And all girls are princesses and all boys are prince charmings, just waiting for twain to meet.
What a silly irrelevant non-sequitur.
Which is what I thought of your statement about people willing to pay for something they'd get for free. I suppose restaurants should hand out free food too, because people will pay them?
It dampens your argument even more. If it's free on airwaves then why not let people do whatever they wish with it as long as they use only own resources, such as peer-to-peer networks?
It does not. The creators or current copyright holders get paid for broadcast rights.
Wow, just wow. Tell me, in your world, what's the difference in taking work from someone and freely distributing it and slavery? Or just down-right forcing them to create? Because your world view is a lot closer to what you're attempting to malign the current system with.
Comparing copyright to slavery doesn't serve to malign it. But merely to show that both involve over broad generalization of notion of property. Slavery is not inherently malign. In fact ancient Greeks would vehemently disagree that it's bad institution. But later it was shown to be counter-productive due to above needless overgeneralization leading to abuses and was abolished. Copyright is on same path.
There is a simple test to prove you wrong: would the ancient Greeks trade places with their slaves?
I'd still say you lack rational thought regarding copyright. In fact, your arguments support copyright more than you realize. Take Kickstarter and Patreon for example. The most successful creative projects there are largely based on copyright's protections.
How come they're based? People who actually care about this stuff only "buy" it to explicitly support creators, the rest pirate it. Exactly same situation would result if copyright were abolished.
They're based on copyright due to how those projects/creators became known/supported in the first place. That you lack the ability to see a plainly stated truth is pretty exceptional.
None of those proposals have a remote chance of being accepted unless abolition is a seriously considered alternative. Copyright lobby is on strictly pro-rent position and they have no reason to budge otherwise. In fact I even made my own proposal, just for the lulz: Work automatically goes public domain after tax filings show that it paid off its creation + 30% profit. This ensures that work that paid for itself already goes into public domain and thus there exists less onerous restrictions on important works and less overpaying for work that has already been done decades ago.
And you thought mine wouldn't work? Why don't you add in that no project would lose more than 1% while you're at it? If you're living in a dream world, you might as well reach for your idealistic stars. At least what I proposed has a basis in law and history being that just about everything has been in law in the past, at least before Disney et al got their fingers into the pie. The only thing I'm sure of is that copyright will be changed.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
I feel that we're going in cycles due to you ignoring some points I made. I merely object to paying money for lifting restrictions which take no effort by itself and their market value is thus 0$. I object to inheritable rents which merely serve to make another worthless social stratum of aristocrats. I do not object for artists being paid for work they actually do. Nothing less and nothing more. You absolutely failed to establish that there is any connection between inheritable rents and state censorship copyright requires and letting authors getting paid. You didn't even try to. Copyright lobbies never were hiding that they actually want infinite copyright, which is in stark contrast to original deal: they get temporary monopoly in exchange for strong public domain. So pretty much everyone is in breach: publishers made it defacto infinite while rest of people don't consider infringing copyrights to be something unusual. The only solution is to legalize status quo: people pay on strictly donation basis, you don't even pretend that people buy something because it just leads to more conflicts and societal tension because both sides have violated their part of this deal for almost a century.
I feel that we're going in cycles due to you ignoring some points I made. I merely object to paying money for lifting restrictions which take no effort by itself and their market value is thus 0$. I object to inheritable rents which merely serve to make another worthless social stratum of aristocrats. I do not object for artists being paid for work they actually do. Nothing less and nothing more.
Granted on the cycles, the cause is a different issue that would generate another cycle. I hold that without copyright artists can easily be ripped off by others and lose control of their works. I believe we largely agree that the length of term of the current law is objectionable as are the terms for transfer, inheritable or otherwise. We disagree on the solution.
You absolutely failed to establish that there is any connection between inheritable rents and state censorship copyright requires and letting authors getting paid. You didn't even try to.
I'm guessing because that wasn't my position nor intent? To be clear, my intent was to show the holes in your position of "no copyright".
Copyright lobbies never were hiding that they actually want infinite copyright, which is in stark contrast to original deal: they get temporary monopoly in exchange for strong public domain. So pretty much everyone is in breach: publishers made it defacto infinite while rest of people don't consider infringing copyrights to be something unusual. The only solution is to legalize status quo: people pay on strictly donation basis, you don't even pretend that people buy something because it just leads to more conflicts and societal tension because both sides have violated their part of this deal for almost a century.
While we agree on the current state and what the industry wants, we disagree on the solution. Since in the US current law exceeds the intent of the clause in the Constitution, it might be time to bring current law back into line with what that intent was. Note that anything with "life of the author" as a limit can be argued to be effectively non-limited violating the "for a limited time" portion of the clause (it's automatically unlimited for the author). Also, the infinite copyrights wanted by industry won't happen because that prevents the movement to the public domain, which is also required by said clause. If we go back to the intent and letter of the Constitution regarding this very specified enumerated ability of Congress and hold the law to be bound by the enabling clause, we would go a long way to addressing a host of complaints regarding copyright. Now if abuse of copyright was also legislated (Happy Birthday and Marvin Gaye's family come to mind as exhibits 1 and 2) for where someone should be held accountable for wrongly trying to profit off of copyrights. Then again, fixing the term length would have addressed both cases negating even the possibility of such nonsensical action.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Granted on the cycles, the cause is a different issue that would generate another cycle. I hold that without copyright artists can easily be ripped off by others and lose control of their works. I believe we largely agree that the length of term of the current law is objectionable as are the terms for transfer, inheritable or otherwise. We disagree on the solution.
Did you know that artists now are ripped off even more than before copyright? There is a lot of cases when their total income from their work is 0 or even negative, due to clever accounting practices and non-negotiable contracts from publishers. At least if only patronage exists their independently wealthy patrons don't have particular reason to rip them off. They just make art and get paid for making art and what is done with it after is irrelevant.
I'm guessing because that wasn't my position nor intent? To be clear, my intent was to show the holes in your position of "no copyright".
You didn't show any holes. Most of your responses are based on this connection existing. Since I question exactly this, they become circular reasoning aka begging the question.
While we agree on the current state and what the industry wants, we disagree on the solution. Since in the US current law exceeds the intent of the clause in the Constitution, it might be time to bring current law back into line with what that intent was. Note that anything with "life of the author" as a limit can be argued to be effectively non-limited violating the "for a limited time" portion of the clause (it's automatically unlimited for the author). Also, the infinite copyrights wanted by industry won't happen because that prevents the movement to the public domain, which is also required by said clause. If we go back to the intent and letter of the Constitution regarding this very specified enumerated ability of Congress and hold the law to be bound by the enabling clause, we would go a long way to addressing a host of complaints regarding copyright. Now if abuse of copyright was also legislated (Happy Birthday and Marvin Gaye's family come to mind as exhibits 1 and 2) for where someone should be held accountable for wrongly trying to profit off of copyrights. Then again, fixing the term length would have addressed both cases negating even the possibility of such nonsensical action.
Copyright like you said is pretty much virtually unlimited, and only reason it's tolerated is that it's not actually enforced. Its original conditions are now broken and it is not possible to really negotiate because it's impossible to come to more or less sensible compromise, because it's core is based in overbroad generalization of private property and built on contradictory ideas. If this can't be good enough reason to seriously consider abolition then I don't know what can. I don't see how could you ever argue for reducing copyright, say, from 75 years to 70 years without getting accused of being enemy of authors and progress. No argument for any sort of reduction can be made for this without getting debunked due to said contradictory nature of copyright. Also it's hard to agree on some particular term. Consequently people who pretend to favor shortening of copyright terms like you will never be able to actually get reduction from lawmakers. Only if an independent political force champions copyright abolition then shortening will become possible as compromise. After all the original US deal (copyright in exchange for allowing for public domain) came as alternative to not having a copyright law at all. In fact, Hollywood managed to get its position only due to lack of copyright enforcement in US at the time when it existed in Europe.
Did you know that artists now are ripped off even more than before copyright? There is a lot of cases when their total income from their work is 0 or even negative, due to clever accounting practices and non-negotiable contracts from publishers. At least if only patronage exists their independently wealthy patrons don't have particular reason to rip them off. They just make art and get paid for making art and what is done with it after is irrelevant.
I would like to see actual details. You also realize there are farmers paying to grow their crops, and that coders are working for less than $1 a day?
I'm guessing because that wasn't my position nor intent? To be clear, my intent was to show the holes in your position of "no copyright".
You didn't show any holes. Most of your responses are based on this connection existing. Since I question exactly this, they become circular reasoning aka begging the question.
There are holes all over. You just refuse to see them. That doesn't make them any less present. My position, based on historical evidence is that with no copyright, there are no protections, and everything is a free for all. We've been there. It results in less works available and certainly nothing that has significant costs associated with it.
I don't see how could you ever argue for reducing copyright, say, from 75 years to 70 years without getting accused of being enemy of authors and progress.
I don't care about whether I am labeled an enemy of authors. It is irrelevant and nothing more than a smear campaign catering to a specific special interest group. I am concerned about constitutionality and the intent of the clause in the Constitution. That clause was not written to promote the welfare of authors et al, but to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. And don't begin by citing SC decisions over time that slowly warped the original intent, as the SC has been provably wrong in the past by their own contradictory rulings and nothing prevents them from reversing course on copyright and returning some semblance of constitutional intent to copyright law.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
I would like to see actual details. You also realize there are farmers paying to grow their crops, and that coders are working for less than $1 a day?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... , also I remember reading many blog articles by artists detailing how they had trouble to make any profit. Lesser known artists are especially vulnerable because they're in very poor bargaining position and can be easily replaced. Then same practices are slowly extended to more important artists, because doing otherwise would be unfair, no? This exists only due to this nonsensical idea of art as "industry".
There are holes all over. You just refuse to see them. That doesn't make them any less present. My position, based on historical evidence is that with no copyright, there are no protections, and everything is a free for all. We've been there. It results in less works available and certainly nothing that has significant costs associated with it.
You failed to conclusively show any holes. And historical precedents either. There's this one book studying (lack of) copyright effects on availability of works: http://www.dklevine.com/genera... . Do you know any others studying same question?
I don't care about whether I am labeled an enemy of authors. It is irrelevant and nothing more than a smear campaign catering to a specific special interest group. I am concerned about constitutionality and the intent of the clause in the Constitution. That clause was not written to promote the welfare of authors et al, but to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. And don't begin by citing SC decisions over time that slowly warped the original intent, as the SC has been provably wrong in the past by their own contradictory rulings and nothing prevents them from reversing course on copyright and returning some semblance of constitutional intent to copyright law.
But how would you actually convince lawmakers to ease copyright excesses without having abolition as a fallback solution rather than status quo? So far extending copyright terms were seen by them as safer options.
I would like to see actual details. You also realize there are farmers paying to grow their crops, and that coders are working for less than $1 a day?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... , also I remember reading many blog articles by artists detailing how they had trouble to make any profit. Lesser known artists are especially vulnerable because they're in very poor bargaining position and can be easily replaced. Then same practices are slowly extended to more important artists, because doing otherwise would be unfair, no? This exists only due to this nonsensical idea of art as "industry".
Yeah, that's basically to screw people out of royalties by whomever owns the right using company. That's also mostly the fault of those selling the rights, no one else. Get your money up front, be happy.
There are holes all over. You just refuse to see them. That doesn't make them any less present. My position, based on historical evidence is that with no copyright, there are no protections, and everything is a free for all. We've been there. It results in less works available and certainly nothing that has significant costs associated with it.
You failed to conclusively show any holes. And historical precedents either. There's this one book studying (lack of) copyright effects on availability of works: http://www.dklevine.com/genera... . Do you know any others studying same question?
I'm not pushing an idealogical utopia that depends upon people willingly supporting artists just because, and that completely neglects others stealing the results of their creativity so I don't need supporting studies. I have approximately 7000 years of history on my side. Outside the last 200 or so with active copyright, creative works were few and far between, and mostly made to please someone that wanted a specific thing. Charts, maps, books, music - all were relatively poor in comparison to what came after copyright. We can also see the results of your particular track on sites like YouTube and those served by the Creative Commons. While the creators of one hope to be discovered while the other appears to do it purely out of their own nobility, not much of worth has come from either.
But how would you actually convince lawmakers to ease copyright excesses without having abolition as a fallback solution rather than status quo? So far extending copyright terms were seen by them as safer options.
It's not lawmakers that should lead it here, but the courts. The SC specifically should throw out the current law as unconstitutional, that they haven't shows either that they have a different interpretation than either of us and we haven't made a sufficient legal challenge to successfully contest the law, or that potentially they're at least partially corrupt. I would have wavered on the second suggestion except for the last 20 years have shown me that at least 1 group only cares about a small set of goals, laws be damned.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
I'm not pushing an idealogical utopia that depends upon people willingly supporting artists just because, and that completely neglects others stealing the results of their creativity so I don't need supporting studies. I have approximately 7000 years of history on my side. Outside the last 200 or so with active copyright, creative works were few and far between, and mostly made to please someone that wanted a specific thing. Charts, maps, books, music - all were relatively poor in comparison to what came after copyright. We can also see the results of your particular track on sites like YouTube and those served by the Creative Commons. While the creators of one hope to be discovered while the other appears to do it purely out of their own nobility, not much of worth has come from either.
No, it's not utopia. It's current status quo. Relative increase of creative works over centuries exists solely due to improving technology like printing press, radio, personal computing, internet, etc. And also by insanely increased human population that has more time for creative endeavours due to increased efficiency brought by industrialization. Copyright actually slows things down, if people(try to) respect it. Any more or less vigorous copyright enforcement affecting individuals will be extremely unpopular and logistically unimplementable. So I'd say copyright itself is actually an utopia, not its abolition.
I'm not pushing an idealogical utopia that depends upon people willingly supporting artists just because, and that completely neglects others stealing the results of their creativity so I don't need supporting studies.
No, it's not utopia. It's current status quo.
Not on this planet. status quo is copyright relatively often being enforced. Whether you like it or not.
Relative increase of creative works over centuries exists solely due to improving technology like printing press, radio, personal computing, internet, etc. And also by insanely increased human population that has more time for creative endeavours due to increased efficiency brought by industrialization. Copyright actually slows things down, if people(try to) respect it. Any more or less vigorous copyright enforcement affecting individuals will be extremely unpopular and logistically unimplementable. So I'd say copyright itself is actually an utopia, not its abolition.
How does copyright slow things down? Would people miraculously plop down 100M to make a movie that will be ripped off after the first showing and widely distributed? Would authors work for years writing books to only have $0 at the end of the effort? None of these things happen today without the effects of copyright, which make investing such sums and payment ahead of time for authors (and musicians) possible to give them the leeway needed to create works. And to kill your KickStarter/Patreon example - remove all currently successful creators that benefited from the copyright system and see what's left. It won't be much.
Finally, as the ultimate counter example look at the well-documented case of Trent Reznor. He went outside the establishment for 1 or 2 albums and a tour. He signed with a label before releasing his next album, stating something loosely along the lines of the label does add value and is worth it. I'm 99% sure that given his track record and outspoken criticism of the industry, he's slightly more knowledgable than either of us about copyright and the system and how it works for artists considering he's tried all sides of it and even with his heavy skepticism has concluded it is better to have it than not. BTW, "skepticism" is a truly understated polite term about how he felt about the industry, read up if you're truly interested. I mention it to indicate how wrong your view is, as detailed by someone that has tried everything you propose and was relatively successful but still finds the current flawed system preferable to your proposed alternatives.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Label isn't same as copyright. True, it might let them earn more money, but it doesn't justify it. Face it, copyright is known as utopic dream based on medieval preconceptions for quite some time. And if it implies restrictions on what people do with bits of data on their own pcs then it's definitely case of "no, thank you". You may dream whatever you like, but such unimplementable flawed laws are just a source of corruption. They can turn it every way. For example, at its time Sherlock Holmes pastiches were freely allowed, while currently you may get sued something that even vaguely imitating a copyright work, or just set in same universe as a copyrighted work. And this wasn't result of legislature, but rather court decision, which strictly speaking is a violation of principle of separation of powers, since such major change should definitely come through legislature. Record labels and other business like that for sure have their place, but copyright creates perverse incentive that makes things worse for everyone if you try to maximize profits. Personally I think holding anything on faith is wrong and many aspects of copyright are in practice are held on basis of faith. This became possible because art is not necessary for survival of society, instead it's side effect of its existence. So any suboptimal decisions won't have too much noticeable societal harm and you can afford to be lazier in all aspects of managing it. But I'm opposed to nonsensical laws and institutions on principle.
A label exists because of copyright. Otherwise it has no purpose.
Sherlock Holmes came about in 1887, well after the initial iteration of copyright. Hell, after several iterations.
While the family of Marvin Gaye may have corrupted copyright for their own personal lawsuits IMNSHO, I am unaware of large slates of frivolous lawsuits over copyrighted materials.
Personally I think holding anything on faith is wrong and many aspects of copyright are in practice are held on basis of faith.
I hate to break it to you, but all laws are based on faith. We have faith they apply to all equally, or close enough. When they do not, that's when civil unrest occurs.
This became possible because art is not necessary for survival of society, instead it's side effect of its existence. So any suboptimal decisions won't have too much noticeable societal harm and you can afford to be lazier in all aspects of managing it. But I'm opposed to nonsensical laws and institutions on principle.
Well then, I suppose you're opposed to a lot of laws and institutions in modern society, because the case can be made that a good percentage are exactly that: nonsensical.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
I don't think so. Label can exist without copyright(their work is marketing but they shouldn't interfere with artists too much), copyright merely prevents new entrants, so as to ensure that entrenched providers can always take it easy. They want copyright for this reason exactly. But it's harmful in general. For example, I don't see a rational reason against things like Star Trek: Axanar to be made, yet it was pursued based on copyright claim. It's clearly can be considered something like a Sherlock Holmes pastiche, so it wasn't forbidden in the past. Yet court now seriously entertains a copyright claim against it, even though it disregards proper definition of "derivative work", the same definition that allowed Sherlock Holmes pastiches to be made. If definition is so unclear then abolish is the only way, since there's absolutely no drive to improve the definition, or to prevent abuses. Only corporations make silly rules just to prevent new entrants to market. I think the move to pure self-policing is the only way here, without involvement of government or courts. Mind you I still think a trademark claim against star trek axanar is justified, but word copyright shouldn't even appear in court filings anywhere.
I'm not sure how Axanar even remotely relates to a pastiche. It wholly appropriated the Star Trek Universe, down to even using the same ship (Enterprise) from the series. I'd say that's a clear textbook definition of a derivative work. The only way it could have been more derivative is if 1 or more of the original series actors reprised their original roles.
For clarity, this is no different than some of the early derivative works done in the Star Wars universe, such as Splinter of the Mind's Eye. Except Foster was granted license to do so. If you want to see an appropriation done the legally correct way, see Galaxy Quest or The Orville. Both borrowed story structures very similar to Star Trek with lots of common elements, yet none of those are copyright infringing because significant (maybe) effort was put into creating something new and wholesale quite different from the original.
Now regarding Axanar, I grant you that I feel JJ was right, and Paramount was wrong - they should have leveraged this interest in their property and had a mutual beneficial relationship. There are other ways to deal with this, Paramount did the knee-jerk no one gets a slice of my pie. Also the Axanar folks should have known and dealt with the copyright issues before even starting this project, considering the level of effort they were going to put into it.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
So please explain how using Enterprise makes it a derivative work while using entire Sherlock Holmes character doesn't? Derivative work clearly covers only transformation of existing work, rather than entirely new work in same universe. If third party authors are allowed to write own Sherlock Holmes stories then third party movie makers are allowed to make their own star trek episodes or entire movies set in the universe. If authors of Sherlock Holmes pastiches weren't forced to rename Holmes then why star trek pastiche authors should rename ships and characters? Using copyright to block third parties like this is definitely yet another abuse. Also since Gene Roddenberry is dead there's no reason to even consider Paramount's own works to be more deserving to reuse those characters than team Axanar's.
So please explain how using Enterprise makes it a derivative work while using entire Sherlock Holmes character doesn't? Derivative work clearly covers only transformation of existing work, rather than entirely new work in same universe. If third party authors are allowed to write own Sherlock Holmes stories then third party movie makers are allowed to make their own star trek episodes or entire movies set in the universe. If authors of Sherlock Holmes pastiches weren't forced to rename Holmes then why star trek pastiche authors should rename ships and characters? Using copyright to block third parties like this is definitely yet another abuse. Also since Gene Roddenberry is dead there's no reason to even consider Paramount's own works to be more deserving to reuse those characters than team Axanar's.
I like that you ramble on. It should be noted that the earliest pastiche was written by Holmes close friend and probably had both his permission and blessing. The rest are all long long after his copyright ran out, so you might want to rethink your position.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... they start from 1912, some made by anonymous authors from other countries. So no, I don't have a reason to rethink my position. You also didn't address the fact that such a pastiche doesn't count as a derivative work due to its definition. Small elements like particular characters or concepts are explicitly non-copyrightable and thus complete work made from them that is not some kind of transformation of other work cannot be a derivative work. For example, Star Trek as a whole isn't a work. Particular Star Trek episode or movie is a work. If you assert something is a derivative work of Star Trek then you must show which episode or movie it's derivative work of. If there is no such episode or movie(or novel or whatever) then it cannot be a derivative work.
According to that list, you're still needing to rethink your position. While UK copyright was the longer of either the author's life plus 7 years or 42 years at the time Doyle wrote the first Sherlock Holmes story, his copyright was limited to England and expired in 1937. The 1912 stories written in Greece appear to be the only ones that were written during the period of UK copyright. However, Greece appears to have had no international agreements regarding copyright, not having signed the Berne Convention yet. In fact, even though the UK was a signer, they didn't really implement the Berne Convention until the late 1900s. So I submit that the Greek pastiches were legal at the time. And, given the times, it's highly unlikely Doyle was even aware of this publication, being that international travel was something not many did at that time.
I believe everything else was written after the expiration of his UK copyright in 1937. So your bar to make a point here is far higher than you apparently thought.
As for a pastiche counting as a derivative work, it absolutely does today:
A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.
Note that that is from the late 1900s, and whatever rulings applied back in 1912 I leave up to you to figure out. Note that the Berne Convention of 1886 already included the phrase "the right to make adaptations and arrangements of the work," which has long been regarded as the protection of derivative works, but that didn't apply to Greece at the time.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Exactly, think about this: this very definition you cited doesn't include works merely made in same universe. And examples it gives all are solely some transformations of existing works, not from scratch new storylines at all. So this definition tells me loud and clear that that star trek film doesn't really belong among derivative works. And once again I reiterate that courts or government shouldn't be involved in determining what works should be made and how they should be distributed, because it's more or less essence of censorship. If people don't want some work to be made they'll simply boycott it, and government only ever gets involved when it wants to override what people would have decided. And I simply don't see a rational reason for government to decide which start trek movies get to be made and which do not. And for any other people that aren't Gene Roddenberry for that matter.
Exactly, think about this: this very definition you cited doesn't include works merely made in same universe. And examples it gives all are solely some transformations of existing works, not from scratch new storylines at all.
"based upon one or more preexisting works"
So this definition tells me loud and clear that that star trek film doesn't really belong among derivative works.
How is that Star Trek Axanar effort not based upon preexisting works?
And once again I reiterate that courts or government shouldn't be involved in determining what works should be made and how they should be distributed, because it's more or less essence of censorship.
You're seriously twisting in the wind on that one. There's no censorship. Works can be published at will. What cannot be done is someone ripping off what you've created. See Pepe the Frog for a case of this happening despite copyright. I'm sure the original creator is loving that his frog creation is so popular. Wait, no he doesn't.
If people don't want some work to be made they'll simply boycott it, and government only ever gets involved when it wants to override what people would have decided.
That's no different that reality today. People boycott stuff they don't like. Government doesn't override the people's will when they boycott something.
And I simply don't see a rational reason for government to decide which start trek movies get to be made and which do not. And for any other people that aren't Gene Roddenberry for that matter.
The government doesn't decide. The courts do when people file lawsuits, because we live in a civil society where we don't go out and have mob justice when someone feels aggrieved. They only decide based on laws that, for the most part, people have agreed to. Although I'll admit the length of term of current copyright law is ridiculous and goes against the intent of the original clause.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
How is that Star Trek Axanar effort not based upon preexisting works?
According to definition of derivative work in the law it must be some kind of adaptation of existing work, for example a movie or a novel. No such work in Star Trek universe exist which Axanar is adaptation of. The definition in the law clearly talks about particular works, not entire universes. And it gives very limited scope of what "is derivative work of" relation entails. All examples given are a lot stricter in scope than merely existing in same universe. And once again individual elements are not copyrightable.
You're seriously twisting in the wind on that one. There's no censorship. Works can be published at will. What cannot be done is someone ripping off what you've created. See Pepe the Frog for a case of this happening despite copyright. I'm sure the original creator is loving that his frog creation is so popular. Wait, no he doesn't.
The thing is the government shouldn't really police this. Even if you just repeat some copyrighted work or your own adaptation of one you still are engaging in speech. And there need to be really good reason to block this. Protecting existing providers from competition isn't good reason. Helping authors enforcing their universe consistency isn't a good reason(Who's responsible for particular universe? People won't agree in many cases). Preventing plagiarism isn't a good reason(This is already being effectively self-policed). In fact there's very little need for state mandated censorship and it's hard to implement without causing worse issues.
That's no different that reality today. People boycott stuff they don't like. Government doesn't override the people's will when they boycott something.
People wanted Axanar to be made and court interfered with this.
The government doesn't decide. The courts do when people file lawsuits, because we live in a civil society where we don't go out and have mob justice when someone feels aggrieved. They only decide based on laws that, for the most part, people have agreed to. Although I'll admit the length of term of current copyright law is ridiculous and goes against the intent of the original clause.
Court is a branch of government. Whenever it makes a decision based on law it's performing state function. Excessive copyright term merely exists because whole logical structure of copyright law is so contradictory it's really hard to argue against term extensions and very few of people who can organize their government presence have an incentive of arguing against long copyright and in favor of short copyright. Situation with any sort of copyright abuses will get worse with time, no work on the law was made with any purpose other than making terms higher. If you want to counteract this then the best platform would be abolition. Any other platform will be really hard to agree on due to too many variables in which ways to "improve" copyright causing a combinatorial explosion and no objective principle cutting off extra options.
How is that Star Trek Axanar effort not based upon preexisting works?
According to definition of derivative work in the law it must be some kind of adaptation of existing work, for example a movie or a novel. No such work in Star Trek universe exist which Axanar is adaptation of. The definition in the law clearly talks about particular works, not entire universes. And it gives very limited scope of what "is derivative work of" relation entails. All examples given are a lot stricter in scope than merely existing in same universe. And once again individual elements are not copyrightable.
You're misunderstanding the concept of derivative works. "based upon one or more preexisting works" immediately shows you that your limited definition is incorrect. Your definition of adaptation is similarly incorrect.
You're seriously twisting in the wind on that one. There's no censorship. Works can be published at will. What cannot be done is someone ripping off what you've created. See Pepe the Frog for a case of this happening despite copyright. I'm sure the original creator is loving that his frog creation is so popular. Wait, no he doesn't.
The thing is the government shouldn't really police this.
Then who should should police it?
Even if you just repeat some copyrighted work or your own adaptation of one you still are engaging in speech. And there need to be really good reason to block this. Protecting existing providers from competition isn't good reason.
If you're rebroadcasting, you're distributing. Distribution is not free speech. That's a good enough reason.
If people don't want some work to be made they'll simply boycott it, and government only ever gets involved when it wants to override what people would have decided.
That's no different that reality today. People boycott stuff they don't like. Government doesn't override the people's will when they boycott something.
People wanted Axanar to be made and court interfered with this.
People want to drive Ferraris too, courts interfere with this. What's your point? The claim you had above was that the Government was interfering with the people's will when they boycott something. At least that's how that sentence reads.
Court is a branch of government. Whenever it makes a decision based on law it's performing state function. Excessive copyright term merely exists because whole logical structure of copyright law is so contradictory it's really hard to argue against term extensions and very few of people who can organize their government presence have an incentive of arguing against long copyright and in favor of short copyright. Situation with any sort of copyright abuses will get worse with time, no work on the law was made with any purpose other than making terms higher. If you want to counteract this then the best platform would be abolition. Any other platform will be really hard to agree on due to too many variables in which ways to "improve" copyright causing a combinatorial explosion and no objective principle cutting off extra options.
The abolition of copyright will occur right after universal income and the subsequent removal of money from society. So you might as well go tilt against those windmills first.
Now, we've already successfully shortened patent terms, so there's precedent in the area of getting IP terms reduced. I personally believe that will happen long before any sort of abolition gains more than token support.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
You're misunderstanding the concept of derivative works. "based upon one or more preexisting works" immediately shows you that your limited definition is incorrect. Your definition of adaptation is similarly incorrect.
I disagree. It doesn't show that. "more than one" clause can be considered to cover aggregation of work, not reuse of universe setting. Adaptation can be rewrite of a story in another medium but stretching it to any work in same universe is taking it too far.
Then who should should police it?
That depends on situation. This area changes too fast atm for written law to keep up and people will come up with own arrangements eventually. Only then they can be codified.
If you're rebroadcasting, you're distributing. Distribution is not free speech. That's a good enough reason.
This doesn't make sense to me. If you repeat something that someone else said or wrote it's still speech. "Distribution" here is red herring.
People want to drive Ferraris too, courts interfere with this. What's your point? The claim you had above was that the Government was interfering with the people's will when they boycott something. At least that's how that sentence reads.
People didn't boycott Axanar but supported it via kickstarter instead. Interfering with its production isn't productive use of court's time. Only a censorship institution will be concerned with "unauthorized" works.
The abolition of copyright will occur right after universal income and the subsequent removal of money from society. So you might as well go tilt against those windmills first.
Honestly I don't see a connection here. Money are needed only to manage scarce resources, and they will always exist. But copies of works are no longer a scarce resource in any sort of way which results in even more disconnect of policy and reality than before. Some scare resources will still likely exist. Like, physical things. Even if we 3d print something raw mats are still scarce. But extending laws of physical property to (non physical part of)artwork was always invalid. Nothing changed here in principle.
Now, we've already successfully shortened patent terms, so there's precedent in the area of getting IP terms reduced. I personally believe that will happen long before any sort of abolition gains more than token support.
And why do you believe that? I simply don't know any person that would refuse to torrent something copyright restricted if they don't want to support authors for some reason or don't have money or out of convenience. I'm sure people will be up for legalizing status quo, because that's how laws work. They codify existing practices. If you make up some abstract greater good then it's just legalized utopia nobody conforms to in practice. And no way I'm going to support any laws if breaking them is widespread and required and not even honestly considered to be something bad. And even if we educate more people to be copyright respecting it will still make things worse, because "piracy" really is the only way for some people to access some things. Pretty much all businesses are moving in the direction of less restrictions. Only when money are directly exchanged for effort or physical goods economy can work.
You're misunderstanding the concept of derivative works. "based upon one or more preexisting works" immediately shows you that your limited definition is incorrect. Your definition of adaptation is similarly incorrect.
I disagree. It doesn't show that. "more than one" clause can be considered to cover aggregation of work, not reuse of universe setting. Adaptation can be rewrite of a story in another medium but stretching it to any work in same universe is taking it too far.
You're free to disagree, however you have failed to provide any convincing arguments to support your view. You are arbitrarily restricting the generally understood meanings of 2 words with no supporting basis to fit your narrow interpretation.
Then who should should police it?
That depends on situation. This area changes too fast atm for written law to keep up and people will come up with own arrangements eventually. Only then they can be codified.
I disagree. This area hasn't really changed at all. People that think it does attempt to artificially restrict words like you did above.
If you're rebroadcasting, you're distributing. Distribution is not free speech. That's a good enough reason.
This doesn't make sense to me. If you repeat something that someone else said or wrote it's still speech. "Distribution" here is red herring.
Of course it doesn't make sense to you, because you don't want it to. "Distribution" is the issue. You can speak about a work but you can't create a derivative work without authorization. You first have to recognize and understand what distribution and derivative works are, then you'll understand why this position makes sense.
People didn't boycott Axanar but supported it via kickstarter instead. Interfering with its production isn't productive use of court's time. Only a censorship institution will be concerned with "unauthorized" works.
You have some warped sense of entitlement. I'm guessing you're on the younger side of 25, haven't held a job, and think the world owes you all sorts of stuff, just because. There's a saying: just because you can, doesn't mean you should. You should apply that to your activities, because if your stance in this thread is any indication, you'll be served with either a cease and desist notice or warrant sooner than later. And when you are, don't send them the tripe you have here, because it will not help you.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.