why pay to go to a Lord of the Rings movie when you can be the Lord of the Rings in an on-line world?
Because humans have always liked being told stories. Spending day after day spearing bison on the plains doesn't mean we didn't like sitting to watch somebody draw pictures of it in the cave. Spending the afternoon playing make-believe with the other neighborhood kids doesn't mean we don't like sitting as Grandpa tells a ghost tale around the campfire. My girlfriend likes filling our lives with all sorts of over-the-top drama, but that doesn't mean she doesn't want to sit and watch "The Notebook" for the thousandth time.
I just wonder if it will ever backfire - in that the Politicians stand up to them.
I have no doubt that some politician(s) will rhetorically exploit public discontent about this stuff, in some form or another. Certainly it'll make for a snazzy stump-speech sentence or two in front of, say, a college crowd.
But you're right that "nothing will change for a long time." Because if anyone thinks actual lawmakers or judges are going to suddenly toss out 200-plus years of constitutional law concerning copyright, they've got another think coming. It's. Not. Going. To. Happen.
And if you're talking about mere "tweaks" to the system -- not gonna happen either. Congress is not going to abruptly say, "OK, we're gonna to keep copyright, but copyright owners can't really defend themselves," just because some technologists and moms in 2007 are upset about copyright owners defending themselves in the way copyright owners always have.
"As a percentage of total population, the United States also has the largest imprisoned population, with 738 people per 100,000 serving time..."
Just musing aloud, it seems there could be two (contradictory) factors at work here:
One is the insane body of drug laws. We've got a whole bunch of people locked up because they ran askew of regulations about putting particular bits of matter into their own bodies.
The second factor requires that we view the modern drug laws as an outlier. And it is this: In a society built on principles of individual liberty, as America has been, a person's freedom is more typically taken away after the fact -- after they've infringed the rights of someone else. E.g., Europe doesn't let you have a gun; America lets you have one but punishes you after you've done something bad with it. Etc.
Generally speaking, when your society is based on letting individuals exert free will, you're gonna have more instances of free will exerted at the expense of others. And thus... more instances of punishment after the fact. Societies that restrict freedom from the outset are doing their "punishing" from the get-go. It's the basic tradeoff that America's founders were willing to make.
This childish attitude of "100% mine" is getting old.
Yes, it certainly is. You do not have a claim on the products of my mind, so quit taking them when I don't want you to.
I will offer a copy of them to you of my own accord, on my own terms, and on my own schedule.
If you find those terms acceptable, we can voluntarily agree to exchange it. If not, you can go without. If you take it anyway, then yes, the childish attitude of "100% mine" will get old quite fast. Because the products of my mind are mine. NOT YOURS, unless I say so.
Are you saying if we got rid of all copies of the Mona Lisa -- all the prints and images that currently allow "more people (to be) exposed to" it -- that the Louvre would not be able to charge a higher premium for viewing the remaining original? Or that this original would not fetch a higher price at auction? You're sure that's a sure thing? You're sure your confidently asserted generalization holds up across the board?
Granted, the syntax of the grandparent post would have been more explicitly accurate if worded like this: Viacom's product is now less valuable TO VIACOM because thousands or millions of people have already seen it OUTSIDE OF VIACOM'S CONTROL. But it's understood that's what the poster meant, because value to the copyright holder was the whole point of the discussion.
Actually, nuzak had a good point. So many of the arguments proferred in these debates are indeed after-the-fact justifications. They're a dime a dozen:
You shouldn't infringe somebody's copyright. I heard that record labels rip off artists!
You shouldn't infringe somebody's copyright. I heard that Disney bought off Congress!
You shouldn't infringe somebody's copyright. CDs only have two good songs!
You shouldn't infringe somebody's copyright. Corporations are greedy!
You shouldn't infringe somebody's copyright. Sometimes it makes me go buy the DVD!
You shouldn't infringe somebody's copyright. It's free exposure!
Ad nauseam. I don't think nuzak was stifling debate. He was simply pointing out the inescapable (and insufferable) reality of these conversations.
Easy enough: whomever needed the specialized knowledge that that author, and no one else, had.
"Knowledge"? Without trying to sidetrack the argument here, I'd say this is a pretty limited view of what writing -- and other arts/crafts -- are all about. Many of history's top-shelf authors had no particular "knowledge" that made them valuable; they had a gift for molding and massaging language. It's not just about function. It's also about aesthetics.
More to the point, their knowledge is not what copyright protects in the first place. Copyright doesn't restrict the use of an author's ideas -- the function part. It protects the specific way in which they are expressed -- the aesthetics part.
As for your speculation about a "copyrightless" future...
Tell you what: Starting tomorrow, let's eliminate copyright protection for all new works. While I don't think it will lead to a fruitful environment, we'll give it a shot. But if I agree to that, can you agree that we should protect the works that were created during the copyright era? These are the works that were created in a good-faith understanding with society -- that the investment (of time, energy, talent, money, whatever) would result in something over which the creator had exclusive rights.
It is this reneging on the deal, undertaken by file-sharers and promoted by many Slashdotters, that most bothers me about the current situation. You wanna get rid of copyright for future works? Fine -- we'll try your brave new world. Just quit advocating harm to those whose work was created under the existing social contract.
No, I'm not "one of them." But good Lord -- what would it matter if I were? In what way would it affect the merits of my arguments themselves?
Surely you see the bad logic at work here:
1. Defend position X. 2. Demonize an organization that opposes position X. 3. Smear position-X opponents by associating them with the organization you've just demonized.
Under such a scenario, then, there can be no honest debate about X.
Nobody is erecting an extra rhetorical hurdle for you to leap in these arguments (e.g., "you're tainted because you get paid to defend X"), so I'm not sure why you feel it's OK to erect one for others. I mean, maybe you simply view Slashdot as a jury you need to convince. I figured the debate functioned with a different purpose, and thus on a different level.
Authoring is a service. Nothing more, nothing less. It's something you should be paid for while you're doing it. By whom? By whomever was interested enough in it to contract you to do it. Writing your book took 18 months? So, you should have been paid a reasonable income for the 18 months it took you to do it. Service completed? Go provide your specialized kind of service (authoring) to someone else.
That's all fine and well. But who exactly, in your no-copyrights utopia, is going to be "interested enough in it to contract you to do it"? A charity service?
The "contracting" scenario you've outlined already exists. It's called work-for-hire. It's probably the most common arrangement in the production of creative works. And it exists because the "hirers" know that society has ensured them exclusive control of the "work," via copyright, and thus they risk the investment.
You're arguing on the one hand for the elimination of copyright, and on the other for a "solution" that then wouldn't exist. You seem unaware of the conflict.
Book Writer: "Alex Gieg says it would be cool if you just pay me for the 18 months of work I've done on this manuscript. Here, I'll just give it to you if you'll give me that cash."
Publisher Guy: "Well, Alex Gieg says copyright is now dead. You think I'm gonna pay you for something that everybody else can just reproduce and distribute without paying me? I'm not even gonna be Publisher Guy tomorrow; I'm going into the cleaning business. Hey, just post it on the Internet. I know you probably won't feel like risking 18 months of your time in the future, since there's no chance of payoff, but Society Will Be Better Off having free access to this one manuscript you've done."
New York Country Lawyer, I've read your submissions and comments on the file-sharing/lawsuits issue for some time. While I'm generally on the opposite side of the debate, I've typically found your remarks to be reasonable and intellectually sound.
That's why I'm a little surprised, maybe even disappointed, to see you lob the "RIAA trolls" line. It doesn't become you or your standard style (unless I've missed a previous tendency on your part to engage in ad hominems). It's not an argument.
Oddest of all is that of everyone here, you're among the most susceptible to unfair charges of being "bought and sold." Given your real-life work, it's YOUR stance that could be countered with, "Who pays you to write this stuff?"
I'm not saying that would be a worthwhile argument. I'm simply saying that you, of all people, should recognize that it's not.
Demanding money with an accompanying threat is still EXTORTION, whether there's an actual lawsuit or not.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I have been saying this for years in these file-sharing debates. I say it every time I hear someone defend infringement by asserting that "all this P2P activity is sending a message to the music industry that CD prices are too high."
Using piracy as a demand to save money on future CD purchases is indeed extortion. It's a shame, because we already have a mechanism to properly set prices, one that is ethical and doesn't violate anyone's copyrights: the free market.
Slashdot Mirror
I have no doubt that some politician(s) will rhetorically exploit public discontent about this stuff, in some form or another. Certainly it'll make for a snazzy stump-speech sentence or two in front of, say, a college crowd.
But you're right that "nothing will change for a long time." Because if anyone thinks actual lawmakers or judges are going to suddenly toss out 200-plus years of constitutional law concerning copyright, they've got another think coming. It's. Not. Going. To. Happen.
And if you're talking about mere "tweaks" to the system -- not gonna happen either. Congress is not going to abruptly say, "OK, we're gonna to keep copyright, but copyright owners can't really defend themselves," just because some technologists and moms in 2007 are upset about copyright owners defending themselves in the way copyright owners always have.
Just musing aloud, it seems there could be two (contradictory) factors at work here:
One is the insane body of drug laws. We've got a whole bunch of people locked up because they ran askew of regulations about putting particular bits of matter into their own bodies.
The second factor requires that we view the modern drug laws as an outlier. And it is this: In a society built on principles of individual liberty, as America has been, a person's freedom is more typically taken away after the fact -- after they've infringed the rights of someone else. E.g., Europe doesn't let you have a gun; America lets you have one but punishes you after you've done something bad with it. Etc.
Generally speaking, when your society is based on letting individuals exert free will, you're gonna have more instances of free will exerted at the expense of others. And thus ... more instances of punishment after the fact. Societies that restrict freedom from the outset are doing their "punishing" from the get-go. It's the basic tradeoff that America's founders were willing to make.
Yes, it certainly is. You do not have a claim on the products of my mind, so quit taking them when I don't want you to.
I will offer a copy of them to you of my own accord, on my own terms, and on my own schedule.
If you find those terms acceptable, we can voluntarily agree to exchange it. If not, you can go without. If you take it anyway, then yes, the childish attitude of "100% mine" will get old quite fast. Because the products of my mind are mine. NOT YOURS, unless I say so.
Are you saying if we got rid of all copies of the Mona Lisa -- all the prints and images that currently allow "more people (to be) exposed to" it -- that the Louvre would not be able to charge a higher premium for viewing the remaining original? Or that this original would not fetch a higher price at auction? You're sure that's a sure thing? You're sure your confidently asserted generalization holds up across the board?
Granted, the syntax of the grandparent post would have been more explicitly accurate if worded like this: Viacom's product is now less valuable TO VIACOM because thousands or millions of people have already seen it OUTSIDE OF VIACOM'S CONTROL. But it's understood that's what the poster meant, because value to the copyright holder was the whole point of the discussion.
You shouldn't infringe somebody's copyright.
I heard that record labels rip off artists!
You shouldn't infringe somebody's copyright.
I heard that Disney bought off Congress!
You shouldn't infringe somebody's copyright.
CDs only have two good songs!
You shouldn't infringe somebody's copyright.
Corporations are greedy!
You shouldn't infringe somebody's copyright.
Sometimes it makes me go buy the DVD!
You shouldn't infringe somebody's copyright.
It's free exposure!
Ad nauseam. I don't think nuzak was stifling debate. He was simply pointing out the inescapable (and insufferable) reality of these conversations.
"Knowledge"? Without trying to sidetrack the argument here, I'd say this is a pretty limited view of what writing -- and other arts/crafts -- are all about. Many of history's top-shelf authors had no particular "knowledge" that made them valuable; they had a gift for molding and massaging language. It's not just about function. It's also about aesthetics.
More to the point, their knowledge is not what copyright protects in the first place. Copyright doesn't restrict the use of an author's ideas -- the function part. It protects the specific way in which they are expressed -- the aesthetics part.
As for your speculation about a "copyrightless" future...
Tell you what: Starting tomorrow, let's eliminate copyright protection for all new works. While I don't think it will lead to a fruitful environment, we'll give it a shot. But if I agree to that, can you agree that we should protect the works that were created during the copyright era? These are the works that were created in a good-faith understanding with society -- that the investment (of time, energy, talent, money, whatever) would result in something over which the creator had exclusive rights.
It is this reneging on the deal, undertaken by file-sharers and promoted by many Slashdotters, that most bothers me about the current situation. You wanna get rid of copyright for future works? Fine -- we'll try your brave new world. Just quit advocating harm to those whose work was created under the existing social contract.
No, I'm not "one of them." But good Lord -- what would it matter if I were? In what way would it affect the merits of my arguments themselves?
Surely you see the bad logic at work here:
1. Defend position X.
2. Demonize an organization that opposes position X.
3. Smear position-X opponents by associating them with the organization you've just demonized.
Under such a scenario, then, there can be no honest debate about X.
Nobody is erecting an extra rhetorical hurdle for you to leap in these arguments (e.g., "you're tainted because you get paid to defend X"), so I'm not sure why you feel it's OK to erect one for others. I mean, maybe you simply view Slashdot as a jury you need to convince. I figured the debate functioned with a different purpose, and thus on a different level.
That's all fine and well. But who exactly, in your no-copyrights utopia, is going to be "interested enough in it to contract you to do it"? A charity service?
The "contracting" scenario you've outlined already exists. It's called work-for-hire. It's probably the most common arrangement in the production of creative works. And it exists because the "hirers" know that society has ensured them exclusive control of the "work," via copyright, and thus they risk the investment.
You're arguing on the one hand for the elimination of copyright, and on the other for a "solution" that then wouldn't exist. You seem unaware of the conflict.
Book Writer: "Alex Gieg says it would be cool if you just pay me for the 18 months of work I've done on this manuscript. Here, I'll just give it to you if you'll give me that cash."
Publisher Guy: "Well, Alex Gieg says copyright is now dead. You think I'm gonna pay you for something that everybody else can just reproduce and distribute without paying me? I'm not even gonna be Publisher Guy tomorrow; I'm going into the cleaning business. Hey, just post it on the Internet. I know you probably won't feel like risking 18 months of your time in the future, since there's no chance of payoff, but Society Will Be Better Off having free access to this one manuscript you've done."
New York Country Lawyer, I've read your submissions and comments on the file-sharing/lawsuits issue for some time. While I'm generally on the opposite side of the debate, I've typically found your remarks to be reasonable and intellectually sound.
That's why I'm a little surprised, maybe even disappointed, to see you lob the "RIAA trolls" line. It doesn't become you or your standard style (unless I've missed a previous tendency on your part to engage in ad hominems). It's not an argument.
Oddest of all is that of everyone here, you're among the most susceptible to unfair charges of being "bought and sold." Given your real-life work, it's YOUR stance that could be countered with, "Who pays you to write this stuff?"
I'm not saying that would be a worthwhile argument. I'm simply saying that you, of all people, should recognize that it's not.
And even more stupid that you correct someone's misspelling with a misspelling.
The word is "paralyzed."
Disclaimer: Am aware that may be missing intended irony of the misspelled correction.
Using piracy as a demand to save money on future CD purchases is indeed extortion. It's a shame, because we already have a mechanism to properly set prices, one that is ethical and doesn't violate anyone's copyrights: the free market.