Look, I obviously shouldn't have brought up the case of handicapped musicians, because everyone's going to say, "hey, being handicapped is tough, we're sorry, but that's the way it is." Let's focus on the fact that lots of music is either unsuited for live performance or may be very expensive to perform live. For example, it may take five guitarists and a 20 piece orchestra or whatever. Or it may take a huge amount of electronics that aren't easily or inexpensively shipped around for touring. Or perhaps its some very very quiet ambient stuff. We all know of plenty of artists or groups that just don't translate well to live performance, but whose studio recordings are great. In this hypothetical future, none of these people can make a living doing what they're good at -- not because their music suddenly sucks, but simply because it's easy to steal it. I think that would be a shame.
Doesn't anyone else regret the fact that this technology which has (had?) the potential to allow anyone to make an independent living from their home studio or software development lab, even if they live in South Bumfuck, Outer Mongolia, is being abused to the point where the only way to make a living is to drag your physical body around from location to location for live performance, like some human dongle? This doesn't sound like "the future" to me, it sounds like a giant step backwards, a narrowing of possibilities instead of an expansion.
Not to sound cold hearted, but that's one of the challenges of being handicapped. In fact, it's why being handicapped is considered a bad thing. If the world was structured in such a way as to make it easier for handicapped people to be successful, then some people would want to be handicapped.
Was this serious? You really think that solutions that don't inherently exclude (or make it extremely difficult for) handicapped people would make people want to be handicapped? Are you one of those people who sees a handicapped parking space and goes, "damn I wish I were a paraplegic!"
I guess I'm just not seeing the plan of action implied by your train of thought.
I'm not suggesting a specific plan of action (here) -- this is a really difficult problem! I'm saying that this glib "solution" or "reinventing of" how a musician makes a living
(by constant touring) has major flaws in it, and not just for the small class of handicapped musicians. If you don't care, because you're not in one of the classes of musicians that are affected by these flaws, yep, that's heartless, or at least self-centered.
You're saying that we should maintain the content industry monopoly on the pimping of artists because removing that monopoly would make it more difficult for handicapped people to make a living making music?
Um, no. The record industry and the current schemes for how people get paid, royalties, promotion, etc., are totally unfair and should be fixed or replaced with something better. But "tour your ass off until you die" and "sell CDs at your shows and don't worry about all the pirated copies" and "if you make music that's not suited for live performance, too fricking bad" are also unfair to sizeable numbers of musicians. It's also really sad that at the same time we have technology that allows people to create wonderful music (or software) in their own homes without spending millions of dollars, another aspect of the same technology, when combined with people who have self-centered ethics, makes it impossible for someone to make a living by selling music or software. I would love to see thousands of independent creators out there, making a living by creating great stuff without being dependent on some corporate monolith -- but it ain't gonna happen given "the way it is."
But, I'm not seeing why people would want to pay to see a dude roll out on stage in a wheelchair and push "Go" on a sequencer. It sounds like your trying to defy natural law, here.
No, I'm saying that any solution to the current mess should allow for musicians who make music that is either unsuited for live performance, or which might be very expensive to perform live (maybe it requires a 20 piece group). Why should one kind of music be given preference over another, just because it's more difficult to steal?
For your wheel-chair bound example to make money off of his electronically sequenced music, he'll likely have to be creative about it. If he can't do live performances, he'll have to think of some other way to make money. That's just the way it is, and it's like that for most electronic musicians, handicapped or not. The electronic music scene is the province of the DJ and the few artists who actually do go out and put on a live show that doesn't depend completely on sequencers.
Why exactly is it that he shouldn't be able to sell CDs? As for being a producer, remixer, etc. -- if you can't sell CDs, then those jobs are in trouble, too. Don't focus on the handicapped thing; I'm saying this is a problem for any media that can be copied, and you're saying that live performance is "the future" because... it can't be copied? So any group that's better in the studio than they are live -- all that music just goes away?
Here's a point I'd like to make. Lots of people here have the general attitude of, "This technology allows people to get stuff (music, movies, games, etc.) for free. So you can't make money selling music, games, etc. anymore. Well, that's just too bad, that's the way it is now." ok, what if the next wave of technology is a device that allows you to teleport into anyone's home, grab a few objects, and teleport out with them? (Yes, I am aware that copying a CD doesn't deprive the owner of his CD -- that's not what I'm arguing here) Would you say, "Well, you're going to come home and all your stuff is going to be gone, teleported out by whoever. Too bad, you'd better get used to it... that's the way it is now!"
I'd guess that very few people arguing in favor of "music is free," "information is free" etc. are so-called "content creators," that is, people who spend large amounts of time and money creating things that they quite reasonably expect people to pay for if they want them. It's real easy to argue "that's just the way it is" when you're one of the ones who stands to lose nothing (at least in the short run) and gain a lot (freebies). Just watch out -- that logic will bite you in the ass eventually.
So, if you're physically challenged (can't play live), aren't physically robust enough to endure the grind of touring, or you create music that's not suitable for live music (unless you count "playback of prerecorded tapes" as a "live performance"), then that's just too bad? Someone in a wheelchair who has a home studio and creates electronic music should just give up, because they can't stand on stage and play a guitar and make the audience all sweaty? Nice.
But I agree that bands should own the copyrights to their music.
Typical/. argument: "I wouldn't have bought it anyway. It's not worth paying for. So I'm not depriving the content creator of any revenues."
ok, so if N days (maybe N=14) after you download some cracked software or copied music, an RIAA or SPA bot comes along and cleans them off your hard drive, do you mind? After all, you weren't really interested in that stuff -- certainly you yourself said that it's not worth paying for.
I'm consistently amazed by the tenacity with which the "information is free" types defend their "right" to download and copy things that they claim are crap that's not worth paying for.
If I start printing counterfeit $20 bills on my Epson Stylus, do you mind? After all, you still have your $20 bills, I'm merely making copies, and hey, I'm not even copying your $20 bills! Anyway, they're only pieces of paper; just because you think they're worth something doesn't mean anything to me. The fact that your $20 will be devalued once I print up a few mil for myself isn't my problem -- it just proves how overvalued $20 bills were by those robber barons at the Federal Reserve! It's really not fair that some people have more money than others, so think of this as "assisted sharing."
So, are all you "copying isn't stealing" folks ok with this, and with the situation that it will lead to?
ok, most of us agree that under fair use, we should be allowed to make backup copies of discs, and only pay once to play on multiple platforms. But how does this get reconciled with the legitimate need of artists to get paid for their work? Would you make music for a living if you knew up front that the way it worked would be "your consumers will pay if and when they feel like it?" And some of them won't pay because they literally can't afford to, but others won't pay because they're cheap bastards, and there's nothing you can do about it? Now, if your answer is "who said anyone deserved to make money from making music?" then I assume you're listening exclusively to music recorded at little or no cost in inexpensive home studios by artists who don't tour (can't tour if you have a full time job to pay the bills, you know) and who only distribute their music online (it costs money to press disks, print jewel box inserts, etc.). And if the answer to that is, "just tour all the time and make a living that way," unfortunately lots of music doesn't lend itself to live performances, e.g. experimental electronic stuff, and some artists are physically challenged and can't tour.
Notice that I'm saying "the artists," not "the record companies." The fact that the record companies are greedy is a red herring -- get rid of them, and you still have the problem of how do you make sure the artist doesn't get ripped off, while giving us fair use of their music once we've paid for it?
Look at it another way: Would you work for an employer who told you, "we'll pay you if and when we feel like it and have enough money?" And it was useless to quit for another job, because all the jobs paid that way? If you would -- then I wouldn't hire you, because you obviously don't think you're worth very much!
I recently had the guy in the next office tell me that he expects that "people in their 30s and 40s who have more money will still pay for stuff, so it doesn't matter if I do or not." The same person just bought a brand new 1.7 GHz PC. Isn't this the equivalent of your boss telling you that he can't afford to pay you this week, then showing you his new $500 espresso machine and $1000 ergonomic chair? You wouldn't be pissed off?
So what's the solution that's fair to us and the artists? Or does anyone care, as long as they get their free stuff? Sort of a welfare state mentality?
When a plumber fixes my toilet, he has no royalty on future flushes.
Why is an artists work for hire accorded such special persistant compensation status?
Really bad analogy. If you went to see a live concert, and the artist(s) expected to be paid repeatedly after you'd seen the concert just once, then yes, that would be indefensible. On the other hand, if the artist expected to be compensated each time you listened to a CD, that might be more like the plumber expecting to be paid each time your toilet broke -- is that unreasonable?
Now, I don't like having to pay each time I listen to a piece of music. I want to pay a flat charge for (my) unlimited listening. This would be the equivalent of paying the plumber a fixed fee that would cover any and all work he has to do on your toilet in the future.
As long as the per-listen fee is very small (say, 1-5 cents each time you listen to the CD), and the "buy-out" fee for unlimited personal consumption is reasonable (say $10), I don't have a problem with the basic idea. Just because the current "fee structure" is inflated doesn't mean that the very concept of paying to listen to something is bad. However, I would have a big problem with not being able to pay the "buy-out" to get infinite uses, but mainly because I'd be worried about the media provider going out of business and my then not being able to access the content without their approval / verification. There would also need to be some provision that the per-listen fee amount would be fixed at the time of purchase, so you wouldn't have to check the record company's web site to find out how much it's going to cost today to listen to a CD you got three years ago.
If the big media companies are going to do the equivalent of jacking the prices up (i.e. unlimited listens for a CD will now cost $50 instead of $12-17), then that's an issue of ripoff pricing -- it doesn't necessarily mean that the idea of charging money is wrong. I mean, if they say you have to pay $0.0001 every time you listen to a CD, and there's a way of insuring that media eventually somehow de-encrypts itself if the author goes out of business, just watch how fast all the whining about economic theory and the rights of the people stops. People can posture all they want, but this is mainly an economic issue for most people, not a philosophical one.
Why do people keep making it sound like "The Man is holding me down and holding my culture hostage?" No one is keeping anyone from producing free music and putting it up on mp3.com or wherever. Just ignore Sony et. al. and support independent artists who don't have megamillion dollar marketing campaigns behind them. But what's that? Many people appear to be sheep who need to be told that Artist Z is the Next Big Thing. If it's just a little guy (or woman) in his/her bedroom studio without any hype, then suddenly people aren't as excited about it. Hey, is it possible that the megacorporations are spending all that money on marketing because they know people are dumb enough to be susceptible to it?
So anyway, stop blaming everything / everyone else for the state of the music / video / movie industries. When people loudly defend their "right" to make free copies of CDs, movies, etc., the Big Boys know that it's an indicator of how badly the masses are hooked on their stuff, which people admit is often crap but go ahead and consume anyway. Piracy is a less frightening problem for them than if the demand for the content were to dry up! "Look, they think they need our stuff so much that they're willing to spend hours downloading it!"
If all these big-talking "information wants to be free" folks had any cojones, here's the right way to destroy copyright:
1. Stop buying and viewing / reading / using all copyrighted material (video, audio, software, text, etc.).
2. Develop non-copyrighted alternative media (video, audio, etc.) and publicly offer it for free, asking only that if people are happy with it that they make a donation to encourage you to produce more.
3. Generously send donations (that means money) to the creators of free stuff that you like.
To cut to the chase: People rarely have the self-discipline to do #1, are generally too lazy, selfish, or untalented to do #2, and are too cheap and selfish to do #3. Yes, there are some nice exceptions like some open-source software, but percentage-wise, the vast majority is freeloading, not contributing, unless contributing requires near-zero effort and cost (e.g. making files that you got for free available for P2P sharing).
So please don't preach about the glories of I Should Get All My Stuff For Free unless you are backing it up with #1,2, and 3. Otherwise you're only rationalizing your selfishness and cheapness, and using/. as an open-source project devoted to constructing the world's largest circle-jerk.
There is no "Right to make a living however you damned well please". Just because you can, under the current system, make a living in some way does not mean you have some right to continue doing it indefinitly.
Of course not, if some honestly developed superior alternative appears. For example, if someone develops a system that takes spoken requests and automatically generates a piece of software, putting programmers out of work, so be it. But the case at hand is more like someone being able to make perfect copies of currency using a scanner or copier. I'm not taking your money away from you -- I'm just making more! What, this technology devalues your $20 bills? Well sorry, but you don't have a God-given right for those pieces of paper to be worth anything! It's just an arbitrary thing that's unenforceable now that we have new technology!
I honestly believe that when I write a program and someone else gets a copy of it, that they have a... right... to modify the program, and to share it with their friends. It is my solem belief that this is their right, and I have no right to stop them, and furthermore that this applies to ANY "Intellectual Work" that I do (be it poetry or music)
Throughout this entire conversation I have been talking specifically about copyright and have even said so over and over. The example which you give involves patents, which are a completely different beast. This is why I say over and over "IP doesn't exist". It doesn't. They are seprate concepts, deserving of seprate discussions. I never once (in this argument) said anything about patents being abolished (they need work yes, but I never brought them up as they are tangential to the original issue)
Lots of designs are copyrighted, but much less is patented. Are you saying that when something is patented, suddenly it assumes a different moral status where it's not ok to copy it or derive from it? Patents are certainly not "tangential to the original issue," especially if you're implying that they have a different moral status.
For the purposes of this discussion, let's say that I go along with your idea that the author does not have an inherent right to their creation, and that society has granted some temporary rights to encourage creators. That doesn't change any of my conclusions, it just means that the protections and rights apply for a limited duration. For example, for the duration of a patent or copyright, the creation is the IP of the creator. After that time, ownership reverts to the public.
And I will continue releasing all of the software and other things that I write either under the GPL or some other free license...because I don't believe that I have the right to restrict anyone else from shareing and using my works.
Again, no one is arguing this. It's your idea that your personal beliefs somehow trump the current laws with respect to other people's IP that I have a problem with.
And I'm hardly the first one to point this out, but your argument is inconsistent: the GPL is a restriction on "my rights" [sic] to do whatever I please with your software. And what happens if I violate the GPL? How is that enforced? Let me guess: lawyers and then police? But you don't support using lawyers and police, so how are you going to enforce the GPL?
one of these days I will get around to actually putting some more "works" up on my web page
It's ok -- I'm sure it's hard to get motivated when you have a day job and no one's paying you to do the web site.;)
In other words: Programmers will no longer be able to independently make a living selling software they've written. They will always have to be hired guns who are dependent on some employer.
Need I remind you that IP doesn't exist? Not in any legal sense. It really doesn't. What we are talking about is copyright.
At least in the US, there are also patents and trade secrets. Of course, a patent is of limited duration, thereby balancing the rights of the creator to be compensated with the right of the public to eventually subsume the invention into the public domain to benefit future progress. Now, you can argue that the period of copyright should be shortened, given the pace of innovation. But that's not the same as throwing IP protection out altogether.
ANY law is a threat by the governmnet. It is a statment that "Here is a rule. If you break it, the police are authorized to stop you".
Of course. Otherwise, in the absence of a totally moral society (which is pretty obvious), you would have people driving 120 mph on the freeway, running red lights, chopping down trees in the city park, etc. As long as there are selfish and unethical people, unfortunately we will have police. And when people start being unethical on a large scale, we head towards having a police state, CCS, etc.
It's a strange paradox that some people who rightly protest totalitarian governments, rigid control, powerful police, etc., are doing things (copying IP) that will likely result in draconian police state like measures being instituted. We wouldn't have CCS if people would stop freeloading!
In fact, Copyright law is not about "protection of rights". It never has been. It is a limited monopoly granted to an author specifically to encourage works. Not because they deserve it, but because we hope it will encourage them to make more.
The net effect is to protect the right of the creator to benefit from their creation, which is what encourages creators to create when the process of creation requires significant resources and/or risks.
Without copyright, true, it would be hard, if not impossible, to work as an "author" (unless you worked for a newspaper). You would need a day job.
And you don't see this as a sad state of affairs?!?
Humans need art (I am of course including music in art). We will find ways to make it work. More art isn't always better. In fact, I think we are at the point where we have hit that point. We don't need the government to encourage art anymore.
But it's not just art! Anything that involves creating IP gets trashed! If I spend five years inventing a new kind of engine that saves gas or pollutes less, I would retain no rights to the design at all. No one would have to pay me a licensing fee to copy my design. Or if I'm a pharmaceutical company, why would I invest $10,000,000 to develop a new drug if my competitors can clone it without having to recoup the r&d costs? You conveniently keep not responding to these major, basic problems with your scheme. Please don't try to back out of having to address the gaping holes in your proposal by saying "we're not going to agree."
As for forcibly stoping "Unauthorized Copiers". No Im sorry, I can't support that. Its a crime with no victem. Noone is hurt. The only way you can even imagine "damage" is to talk about some imaginary "value" or "money that a person didn't get".
But you're sweeping under the rug anything where the damage is not absolutely provable in advance! Let's say you stand outside the local computer store yelling, "free copies of any software in the store, right here!" A bunch of people take your free copies. Well, you can't prove that any of those people would've bought any software, right? But is there any doubt that you're denying the computer store revenues? Of course, some people wouldn't have bought software, but you're being ingenuous if you claim that no one would have bought any software. Are you really going to say "well it's only imaginary value?" Please.
I am sorry, but I just do NOT think that it is EVER legitimate to use the threat of force by the government (which is what a law is - a threat of force) to solve general social or economic problems (like artists desire to be compensated). The threat of force should ONLY be used to stop the use of illegitimate force.
I'm not sure what kind of "illegitimate force" you're talking about. If you mean physical force, then are you saying that if I access your machine over the net and wipe the hard drives, or hack your credit card data to ruin your credit, siphon all the money out of your checking account, or steal your identity, that the police should have no involvement? After all, I didn't do anything that required physical force! If by "force" you mean anything that is done against someone's will, then making copies of my creation against my will is illegitimate force.
How could she produce works and be compensated without this monopoly? I don't really see that as my problem to solve. There are many proposals for this already in the world.
Only under the terms of what you're calling a monopoly (and what I would simply refer to as IP ownership) can the author be guaranteed payment that is proportional to the popularity or usefulness of their creation. I keep seeing this argument that "they're just making copies, and the copies aren't the property of the author." Can't you see that under this scheme, only a very few people will pay for something, and many others will freeload? Intuitively, shouldn't a great book that 50,000,000 people want to read bring more revenue to the author than a lousy book that only 10,000 people want to read? And given a large number of unethical individuals, there is no way to prevent free copying without some copyright enforcement mechanism.
She could do it for commission! Thats certainly viable for software authors (and sometimes musicians - in fact its exactly how many like Bach made their money), and painters, sculptors etc (possibly less so for book authors).
Commission could be a valid paradigm in some cases, but it has problems. New creators, whose work is totally unfamiliar to the public, can't use it. So if a new author's first book is a blockbuster, no one's going to know in advance and give him money up front to write it. Also, commission doesn't address the fundamental problem of freeloading, unless the amount of the commission is so high that it equals the greatest sales that can be expected for an upcoming creation. If artist X gets $20,000 in commission to record their next CD, but the CD turns out to be a mega-hit that 100,000,000 people listen to, then artist X has gotten screwed. Note that Bach didn't have this problem in his lifetime -- his music was inherently copy-limited in that music had to be played live to hear it, so you didn't have the issue of 50,000,000 people listening to mp3 copies for free.
Sending police after someone is not something that should EVER be taken lightly, and its something that I think people need to be reminded of.
I agree completely. But in practice, the first step is that someone's lawyer sends out a cease and desist letter. Police would only be sent in the case of large scale copyright violation (the guy with 60,000 pirated Britney Spears CDs), or someone who refuses to respond to repeated legal threats.
At any rate, I think that if you're going to take a position so strongly (there should be no IP), then it's your responsibility to address the obvious and potentially disastrous consequences of your proposal. If you can't address them, that should tell you that your proposal may be unworkable. I mean, I could say "I don't think I should have to work, I should just get a check in the mail," but if I can't tell you where that money is going to come from, it ain't gonna work!
What would be the motivation for someone to create anything that requires investing and risking large amounts of money to create? The usual example that's given is pharmaceuticals. What would be a valid business model for a pharmaceutical company in a world with no concept of IP? How would they raise the money to develop new drugs if they had no exclusive rights to anything they developed?
I am advocating getting rid of government imposed restrictions on copying. Now, if that makes it harder for you to be compensated for you work, you are free to find a new way to attain compensation - one that does NOT require an army of armed soldiers (called police) to change the behaviour of your fellow citizens.
The enforcement of any law, right down to parking violations, can ultimately depend on the police, so please skip the "stormtroopers are coming" scare tactics. What you're saying is, there should be no law against theft of IP, or if you're someone who believes that information is inherently valueless (amazing to me in this day and age where information and non-physical assets are becoming far more valuable than physical assets), that there should be no law against copying IP without compensating the creator. So far, my understanding of your justification for this position is (1) you believe it, (2) it's easy to copy IP without compensating the creator.
As for compensation, I have already said that I think it is wholly right that artisans be compensated for their creations. I am willing to compensate them to encourage good work.
ok, how do you propose that creators of IP be guaranteed fair compensation for their efforts? You are aware of the dismal rate at which shareware gets registered and paid for, right?
Hey, I agree that some information should not or cannot be owned. For example: the value of the numbers pi and e, physical constants, etc. But if it's non-obvious and requires significant effort to create the information, why (aside from Proof By Repeated Assertion) shouldn't the creator have some rights to it?
In fact, its quite clear, from looking at the law, that an illegally obtained copy is just that, illegally obtained. Not illegal to posess or use.
What? Of course it's illegal to possess an illegal copy of something. Don't you ever see news coverage of the raids where someone has 60,000 pirate Brittany Spears CDs or something and gets busted? Are you saying they can only bust them if they catch them in the act of buying them from the pressing plant?
Of course, the entire concept of "fair use" seems to contradict the doctrine of "IP" now doesn't it?
It's an attempt to make provision for reasonable use, e.g. a review of a book can quote from it. That's why the word "fair" is in there -- it doesn't mean just any use. Please don't "exclude the middle" -- just because some information can't be owned (e, pi), and there is some fair use, doesn't mean that all information is free or all unpaid use is fair.
Would you advocate that personal ice making machines and freezers should have been outlawed because of what they did to the ice harvesting industry? (just think, a person can go out to a lake now, and cut ice from the frozen lake, and noone will compensate them for their work...a whole industry was wiped out!)
Of course not. Ice is a naturally-occuring resource which is available without any ingenuity or major investment. No one had to "figure out" or "invent" or "create" ice. But if someone spent three years and $1,000,000 developing and perfecting the freezer or the ice maker, then the inventor would reasonably expect to be able to derive some profit from their investment and risk-taking (there was no guarantee that the freezer gizmo would really work or be practical in the home, nor that the patent office would think it original enough to grant a patent). No one should be able to make a clone of the freezer or ice maker, during the limited period within which a patent is in effect, without paying the inventor.
If they didn't have to pay the inventor, they would be able to make instant profits, without the need to recoup development expenses that the inventor incurred. So the inventor spends a ton of time and money to develop something, then the moment it's done, he's broke, and everyone else swoops in to make money off his work! Leaving the legal stuff aside, does this intuitively seem fair to you?!?
Humans create things even when there is no profit motive at all. The act of creation, the act of searching and discovery is IN AND OF ITSELF rewarding.
If you want to create things without monetary compensation, of course you have a right to do so. No one is arguing that. But you are trying to take away my right to decide whether I want to be compensated for my work. Who are you to make this decision unilaterally? If you don't think I should be compensated, then don't buy my creations, and I'll go broke! That would be a moral stand I could respect, unlike "I've decided that you don't get paid but I'll take your stuff anyway, thanks."
Its only because of the need to pay bills and maintain quality of life that people seek money. How many times have you seen a person going stir crazy after retiurement? They ahve the urge to work, and often get involved in little projects and building things, for love of working!
Well if you're going to pay for me to retire early, then you can have all my creations for free! If IP creators aren't paid, they'll never get to retire, hello!
Yes, authors should get paid. That does NOT mean that they have ANY right to stop a person from sharing with others.
Uh, when people "share with others" (i.e. steal IP), they are denying the author payment. What is the idea -- set the price of a book at $100,000, so only one has to be sold, then everyone else just "shares" free copies? You gonna be the one who buys that first copy?
Whether it is good economically or not is besides the point.
Well obviously you've decided it's irrelevant to you, because you're unconcerned with the rights of IP creators, only with your own desires.
I am fundamentally oposed to ANY law that says I can't share information with my friends. Its unenforcable at best, and, in my eyes, morally corrupt.
As I hope you're aware, whether it's "enforcable" or not is irrelevant to whether it's morally right or wrong. And you can of course share any information that you created with anyone you wish. You just can't share my creations with others, unless I agree. You don't like that? Then don't support my creations, support only people who give stuff away for free -- it will hasten the demise of people like me who insist on being paid. If you insist on stealing my creations, then clearly you think they have some value, even if you stubbornly refuse to pay for them.
I will not support the use of armed soldiers to support "restrictions on copying".
Making copies of other cars is a long time legitimate business. They are called "replicas". They are legal. If there are only 5 1938 Phantoms in existance, and you make a replica of one, I haven't had anything "stolen" from me.
The copyrights/patents on a 1938 car have long since expired. Try making an exact replica of a 2001 Viper and wait for the lawyers to call. You are stealing -- you're stealing the design. Any idea how much time and money it costs to design a car? By stealing a design (IP), you're taking the fruits of someone else's intellectual labor without having to pay for its development.
It's not theft if nothing's missing.
What's missing is the revenues you've deprived them of. If you wouldn't have bought it anyway, then why is it such a big deal that you're denied it by IP laws?
Here's another way of looking at it. You spend a long time studying for an exam. You take the exam and do really well on it. The person next to you, however, didn't study at all and just watched you during the exam and copied your answers, thereby also getting top marks. They didn't deprive you of anything -- you still have your correct answers and good grades. But they took advantage of and devalued your hard work without compensating you. Is that fair?
Here's yet another example. You spend lots of money on CDs, DVDs, etc. Your next door neighbor knows you're on vacation for a week. They pick the lock on your front door, borrow all your CDs and DVDs, copy everything, then put all the originals back so you can't even tell they've been there. But they now have a CD/DVD collection for only the cost of a couple spindles' worth of blank discs, while you spent a good chunk of your paycheck amassing your collection. Do you think this is ok?
Can you add xeroxed magazine articles at the library?
Copying an article is generally agreed to fall under "fair use." Copying an entire issue usually costs more than buying the magazine.
Or read magazines at the supermarket checkout stand and then not buy them?
If you read most or all of the magazine without paying for it, shame on you. You're freeloading.
Or borrowed a CD/movie from a friend? Library books being read by people without full payment for that book going to the publisher for each person that checks out the book?
In all these cases, you don't get all the benefits of ownership, i.e. you only get to use it for a limited period of time before you have to return it to the owner, or the copy is not as good as the original. If you checked out a book, then scanned the whole thing at 2400 dpi and posted pdfs on the net, then yes, a lot of people do have a problem with that.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't anyone else regret the fact that this technology which has (had?) the potential to allow anyone to make an independent living from their home studio or software development lab, even if they live in South Bumfuck, Outer Mongolia, is being abused to the point where the only way to make a living is to drag your physical body around from location to location for live performance, like some human dongle? This doesn't sound like "the future" to me, it sounds like a giant step backwards, a narrowing of possibilities instead of an expansion.
Was this serious? You really think that solutions that don't inherently exclude (or make it extremely difficult for) handicapped people would make people want to be handicapped? Are you one of those people who sees a handicapped parking space and goes, "damn I wish I were a paraplegic!"
I guess I'm just not seeing the plan of action implied by your train of thought.
I'm not suggesting a specific plan of action (here) -- this is a really difficult problem! I'm saying that this glib "solution" or "reinventing of" how a musician makes a living (by constant touring) has major flaws in it, and not just for the small class of handicapped musicians. If you don't care, because you're not in one of the classes of musicians that are affected by these flaws, yep, that's heartless, or at least self-centered.
You're saying that we should maintain the content industry monopoly on the pimping of artists because removing that monopoly would make it more difficult for handicapped people to make a living making music?
Um, no. The record industry and the current schemes for how people get paid, royalties, promotion, etc., are totally unfair and should be fixed or replaced with something better. But "tour your ass off until you die" and "sell CDs at your shows and don't worry about all the pirated copies" and "if you make music that's not suited for live performance, too fricking bad" are also unfair to sizeable numbers of musicians. It's also really sad that at the same time we have technology that allows people to create wonderful music (or software) in their own homes without spending millions of dollars, another aspect of the same technology, when combined with people who have self-centered ethics, makes it impossible for someone to make a living by selling music or software. I would love to see thousands of independent creators out there, making a living by creating great stuff without being dependent on some corporate monolith -- but it ain't gonna happen given "the way it is."
But, I'm not seeing why people would want to pay to see a dude roll out on stage in a wheelchair and push "Go" on a sequencer. It sounds like your trying to defy natural law, here.
No, I'm saying that any solution to the current mess should allow for musicians who make music that is either unsuited for live performance, or which might be very expensive to perform live (maybe it requires a 20 piece group). Why should one kind of music be given preference over another, just because it's more difficult to steal?
For your wheel-chair bound example to make money off of his electronically sequenced music, he'll likely have to be creative about it. If he can't do live performances, he'll have to think of some other way to make money. That's just the way it is, and it's like that for most electronic musicians, handicapped or not. The electronic music scene is the province of the DJ and the few artists who actually do go out and put on a live show that doesn't depend completely on sequencers.
Why exactly is it that he shouldn't be able to sell CDs? As for being a producer, remixer, etc. -- if you can't sell CDs, then those jobs are in trouble, too. Don't focus on the handicapped thing; I'm saying this is a problem for any media that can be copied, and you're saying that live performance is "the future" because... it can't be copied? So any group that's better in the studio than they are live -- all that music just goes away?
Here's a point I'd like to make. Lots of people here have the general attitude of, "This technology allows people to get stuff (music, movies, games, etc.) for free. So you can't make money selling music, games, etc. anymore. Well, that's just too bad, that's the way it is now." ok, what if the next wave of technology is a device that allows you to teleport into anyone's home, grab a few objects, and teleport out with them? (Yes, I am aware that copying a CD doesn't deprive the owner of his CD -- that's not what I'm arguing here) Would you say, "Well, you're going to come home and all your stuff is going to be gone, teleported out by whoever. Too bad, you'd better get used to it... that's the way it is now!"
I'd guess that very few people arguing in favor of "music is free," "information is free" etc. are so-called "content creators," that is, people who spend large amounts of time and money creating things that they quite reasonably expect people to pay for if they want them. It's real easy to argue "that's just the way it is" when you're one of the ones who stands to lose nothing (at least in the short run) and gain a lot (freebies). Just watch out -- that logic will bite you in the ass eventually.
But I agree that bands should own the copyrights to their music.
ok, so if N days (maybe N=14) after you download some cracked software or copied music, an RIAA or SPA bot comes along and cleans them off your hard drive, do you mind? After all, you weren't really interested in that stuff -- certainly you yourself said that it's not worth paying for.
I'm consistently amazed by the tenacity with which the "information is free" types defend their "right" to download and copy things that they claim are crap that's not worth paying for.
So, are all you "copying isn't stealing" folks ok with this, and with the situation that it will lead to?
Notice that I'm saying "the artists," not "the record companies." The fact that the record companies are greedy is a red herring -- get rid of them, and you still have the problem of how do you make sure the artist doesn't get ripped off, while giving us fair use of their music once we've paid for it?
Look at it another way: Would you work for an employer who told you, "we'll pay you if and when we feel like it and have enough money?" And it was useless to quit for another job, because all the jobs paid that way? If you would -- then I wouldn't hire you, because you obviously don't think you're worth very much!
I recently had the guy in the next office tell me that he expects that "people in their 30s and 40s who have more money will still pay for stuff, so it doesn't matter if I do or not." The same person just bought a brand new 1.7 GHz PC. Isn't this the equivalent of your boss telling you that he can't afford to pay you this week, then showing you his new $500 espresso machine and $1000 ergonomic chair? You wouldn't be pissed off?
So what's the solution that's fair to us and the artists? Or does anyone care, as long as they get their free stuff? Sort of a welfare state mentality?
Why is an artists work for hire accorded such special persistant compensation status?
Really bad analogy. If you went to see a live concert, and the artist(s) expected to be paid repeatedly after you'd seen the concert just once, then yes, that would be indefensible. On the other hand, if the artist expected to be compensated each time you listened to a CD, that might be more like the plumber expecting to be paid each time your toilet broke -- is that unreasonable?
Now, I don't like having to pay each time I listen to a piece of music. I want to pay a flat charge for (my) unlimited listening. This would be the equivalent of paying the plumber a fixed fee that would cover any and all work he has to do on your toilet in the future.
As long as the per-listen fee is very small (say, 1-5 cents each time you listen to the CD), and the "buy-out" fee for unlimited personal consumption is reasonable (say $10), I don't have a problem with the basic idea. Just because the current "fee structure" is inflated doesn't mean that the very concept of paying to listen to something is bad. However, I would have a big problem with not being able to pay the "buy-out" to get infinite uses, but mainly because I'd be worried about the media provider going out of business and my then not being able to access the content without their approval / verification. There would also need to be some provision that the per-listen fee amount would be fixed at the time of purchase, so you wouldn't have to check the record company's web site to find out how much it's going to cost today to listen to a CD you got three years ago.
If the big media companies are going to do the equivalent of jacking the prices up (i.e. unlimited listens for a CD will now cost $50 instead of $12-17), then that's an issue of ripoff pricing -- it doesn't necessarily mean that the idea of charging money is wrong. I mean, if they say you have to pay $0.0001 every time you listen to a CD, and there's a way of insuring that media eventually somehow de-encrypts itself if the author goes out of business, just watch how fast all the whining about economic theory and the rights of the people stops. People can posture all they want, but this is mainly an economic issue for most people, not a philosophical one.
So anyway, stop blaming everything / everyone else for the state of the music / video / movie industries. When people loudly defend their "right" to make free copies of CDs, movies, etc., the Big Boys know that it's an indicator of how badly the masses are hooked on their stuff, which people admit is often crap but go ahead and consume anyway. Piracy is a less frightening problem for them than if the demand for the content were to dry up! "Look, they think they need our stuff so much that they're willing to spend hours downloading it!"
As Precious Roy would say, "SUCKERS!!"
1. Stop buying and viewing / reading / using all copyrighted material (video, audio, software, text, etc.).
2. Develop non-copyrighted alternative media (video, audio, etc.) and publicly offer it for free, asking only that if people are happy with it that they make a donation to encourage you to produce more.
3. Generously send donations (that means money) to the creators of free stuff that you like.
To cut to the chase: People rarely have the self-discipline to do #1, are generally too lazy, selfish, or untalented to do #2, and are too cheap and selfish to do #3. Yes, there are some nice exceptions like some open-source software, but percentage-wise, the vast majority is freeloading, not contributing, unless contributing requires near-zero effort and cost (e.g. making files that you got for free available for P2P sharing).
So please don't preach about the glories of I Should Get All My Stuff For Free unless you are backing it up with #1,2, and 3. Otherwise you're only rationalizing your selfishness and cheapness, and using /. as an open-source project devoted to constructing the world's largest circle-jerk.
Of course not, if some honestly developed superior alternative appears. For example, if someone develops a system that takes spoken requests and automatically generates a piece of software, putting programmers out of work, so be it. But the case at hand is more like someone being able to make perfect copies of currency using a scanner or copier. I'm not taking your money away from you -- I'm just making more! What, this technology devalues your $20 bills? Well sorry, but you don't have a God-given right for those pieces of paper to be worth anything! It's just an arbitrary thing that's unenforceable now that we have new technology!
I honestly believe that when I write a program and someone else gets a copy of it, that they have a ... right ... to modify the program, and to share it with their friends. It is my solem belief that this is their right, and I have no right to stop them, and furthermore that this applies to ANY "Intellectual Work" that I do (be it poetry or music)
Throughout this entire conversation I have been talking specifically about copyright and have even said so over and over. The example which you give involves patents, which are a completely different beast. This is why I say over and over "IP doesn't exist". It doesn't. They are seprate concepts, deserving of seprate discussions. I never once (in this argument) said anything about patents being abolished (they need work yes, but I never brought them up as they are tangential to the original issue)
Lots of designs are copyrighted, but much less is patented. Are you saying that when something is patented, suddenly it assumes a different moral status where it's not ok to copy it or derive from it? Patents are certainly not "tangential to the original issue," especially if you're implying that they have a different moral status.
For the purposes of this discussion, let's say that I go along with your idea that the author does not have an inherent right to their creation, and that society has granted some temporary rights to encourage creators. That doesn't change any of my conclusions, it just means that the protections and rights apply for a limited duration. For example, for the duration of a patent or copyright, the creation is the IP of the creator. After that time, ownership reverts to the public.
Again, no one is arguing this. It's your idea that your personal beliefs somehow trump the current laws with respect to other people's IP that I have a problem with.
And I'm hardly the first one to point this out, but your argument is inconsistent: the GPL is a restriction on "my rights" [sic] to do whatever I please with your software. And what happens if I violate the GPL? How is that enforced? Let me guess: lawyers and then police? But you don't support using lawyers and police, so how are you going to enforce the GPL?
one of these days I will get around to actually putting some more "works" up on my web page
It's ok -- I'm sure it's hard to get motivated when you have a day job and no one's paying you to do the web site. ;)
In other words: Programmers will no longer be able to independently make a living selling software they've written. They will always have to be hired guns who are dependent on some employer.
Need I remind you that IP doesn't exist? Not in any legal sense. It really doesn't. What we are talking about is copyright.
At least in the US, there are also patents and trade secrets. Of course, a patent is of limited duration, thereby balancing the rights of the creator to be compensated with the right of the public to eventually subsume the invention into the public domain to benefit future progress. Now, you can argue that the period of copyright should be shortened, given the pace of innovation. But that's not the same as throwing IP protection out altogether.
ANY law is a threat by the governmnet. It is a statment that "Here is a rule. If you break it, the police are authorized to stop you".
Of course. Otherwise, in the absence of a totally moral society (which is pretty obvious), you would have people driving 120 mph on the freeway, running red lights, chopping down trees in the city park, etc. As long as there are selfish and unethical people, unfortunately we will have police. And when people start being unethical on a large scale, we head towards having a police state, CCS, etc.
It's a strange paradox that some people who rightly protest totalitarian governments, rigid control, powerful police, etc., are doing things (copying IP) that will likely result in draconian police state like measures being instituted. We wouldn't have CCS if people would stop freeloading!
In fact, Copyright law is not about "protection of rights". It never has been. It is a limited monopoly granted to an author specifically to encourage works. Not because they deserve it, but because we hope it will encourage them to make more.
The net effect is to protect the right of the creator to benefit from their creation, which is what encourages creators to create when the process of creation requires significant resources and/or risks.
Without copyright, true, it would be hard, if not impossible, to work as an "author" (unless you worked for a newspaper). You would need a day job.
And you don't see this as a sad state of affairs?!?
Humans need art (I am of course including music in art). We will find ways to make it work. More art isn't always better. In fact, I think we are at the point where we have hit that point. We don't need the government to encourage art anymore.
But it's not just art! Anything that involves creating IP gets trashed! If I spend five years inventing a new kind of engine that saves gas or pollutes less, I would retain no rights to the design at all. No one would have to pay me a licensing fee to copy my design. Or if I'm a pharmaceutical company, why would I invest $10,000,000 to develop a new drug if my competitors can clone it without having to recoup the r&d costs? You conveniently keep not responding to these major, basic problems with your scheme. Please don't try to back out of having to address the gaping holes in your proposal by saying "we're not going to agree."
But you're sweeping under the rug anything where the damage is not absolutely provable in advance! Let's say you stand outside the local computer store yelling, "free copies of any software in the store, right here!" A bunch of people take your free copies. Well, you can't prove that any of those people would've bought any software, right? But is there any doubt that you're denying the computer store revenues? Of course, some people wouldn't have bought software, but you're being ingenuous if you claim that no one would have bought any software. Are you really going to say "well it's only imaginary value?" Please.
I am sorry, but I just do NOT think that it is EVER legitimate to use the threat of force by the government (which is what a law is - a threat of force) to solve general social or economic problems (like artists desire to be compensated). The threat of force should ONLY be used to stop the use of illegitimate force.
I'm not sure what kind of "illegitimate force" you're talking about. If you mean physical force, then are you saying that if I access your machine over the net and wipe the hard drives, or hack your credit card data to ruin your credit, siphon all the money out of your checking account, or steal your identity, that the police should have no involvement? After all, I didn't do anything that required physical force! If by "force" you mean anything that is done against someone's will, then making copies of my creation against my will is illegitimate force.
Only under the terms of what you're calling a monopoly (and what I would simply refer to as IP ownership) can the author be guaranteed payment that is proportional to the popularity or usefulness of their creation. I keep seeing this argument that "they're just making copies, and the copies aren't the property of the author." Can't you see that under this scheme, only a very few people will pay for something, and many others will freeload? Intuitively, shouldn't a great book that 50,000,000 people want to read bring more revenue to the author than a lousy book that only 10,000 people want to read? And given a large number of unethical individuals, there is no way to prevent free copying without some copyright enforcement mechanism.
She could do it for commission! Thats certainly viable for software authors (and sometimes musicians - in fact its exactly how many like Bach made their money), and painters, sculptors etc (possibly less so for book authors).
Commission could be a valid paradigm in some cases, but it has problems. New creators, whose work is totally unfamiliar to the public, can't use it. So if a new author's first book is a blockbuster, no one's going to know in advance and give him money up front to write it. Also, commission doesn't address the fundamental problem of freeloading, unless the amount of the commission is so high that it equals the greatest sales that can be expected for an upcoming creation. If artist X gets $20,000 in commission to record their next CD, but the CD turns out to be a mega-hit that 100,000,000 people listen to, then artist X has gotten screwed. Note that Bach didn't have this problem in his lifetime -- his music was inherently copy-limited in that music had to be played live to hear it, so you didn't have the issue of 50,000,000 people listening to mp3 copies for free.
Sending police after someone is not something that should EVER be taken lightly, and its something that I think people need to be reminded of.
I agree completely. But in practice, the first step is that someone's lawyer sends out a cease and desist letter. Police would only be sent in the case of large scale copyright violation (the guy with 60,000 pirated Britney Spears CDs), or someone who refuses to respond to repeated legal threats.
At any rate, I think that if you're going to take a position so strongly (there should be no IP), then it's your responsibility to address the obvious and potentially disastrous consequences of your proposal. If you can't address them, that should tell you that your proposal may be unworkable. I mean, I could say "I don't think I should have to work, I should just get a check in the mail," but if I can't tell you where that money is going to come from, it ain't gonna work!
What would be the motivation for someone to create anything that requires investing and risking large amounts of money to create? The usual example that's given is pharmaceuticals. What would be a valid business model for a pharmaceutical company in a world with no concept of IP? How would they raise the money to develop new drugs if they had no exclusive rights to anything they developed?
The enforcement of any law, right down to parking violations, can ultimately depend on the police, so please skip the "stormtroopers are coming" scare tactics. What you're saying is, there should be no law against theft of IP, or if you're someone who believes that information is inherently valueless (amazing to me in this day and age where information and non-physical assets are becoming far more valuable than physical assets), that there should be no law against copying IP without compensating the creator. So far, my understanding of your justification for this position is (1) you believe it, (2) it's easy to copy IP without compensating the creator.
As for compensation, I have already said that I think it is wholly right that artisans be compensated for their creations. I am willing to compensate them to encourage good work.
ok, how do you propose that creators of IP be guaranteed fair compensation for their efforts? You are aware of the dismal rate at which shareware gets registered and paid for, right?
Hey, I agree that some information should not or cannot be owned. For example: the value of the numbers pi and e, physical constants, etc. But if it's non-obvious and requires significant effort to create the information, why (aside from Proof By Repeated Assertion) shouldn't the creator have some rights to it?
In fact, its quite clear, from looking at the law, that an illegally obtained copy is just that, illegally obtained. Not illegal to posess or use.
What? Of course it's illegal to possess an illegal copy of something. Don't you ever see news coverage of the raids where someone has 60,000 pirate Brittany Spears CDs or something and gets busted? Are you saying they can only bust them if they catch them in the act of buying them from the pressing plant?
Of course, the entire concept of "fair use" seems to contradict the doctrine of "IP" now doesn't it?
It's an attempt to make provision for reasonable use, e.g. a review of a book can quote from it. That's why the word "fair" is in there -- it doesn't mean just any use. Please don't "exclude the middle" -- just because some information can't be owned (e, pi), and there is some fair use, doesn't mean that all information is free or all unpaid use is fair.
Would you advocate that personal ice making machines and freezers should have been outlawed because of what they did to the ice harvesting industry? (just think, a person can go out to a lake now, and cut ice from the frozen lake, and noone will compensate them for their work...a whole industry was wiped out!)
Of course not. Ice is a naturally-occuring resource which is available without any ingenuity or major investment. No one had to "figure out" or "invent" or "create" ice. But if someone spent three years and $1,000,000 developing and perfecting the freezer or the ice maker, then the inventor would reasonably expect to be able to derive some profit from their investment and risk-taking (there was no guarantee that the freezer gizmo would really work or be practical in the home, nor that the patent office would think it original enough to grant a patent). No one should be able to make a clone of the freezer or ice maker, during the limited period within which a patent is in effect, without paying the inventor.
If they didn't have to pay the inventor, they would be able to make instant profits, without the need to recoup development expenses that the inventor incurred. So the inventor spends a ton of time and money to develop something, then the moment it's done, he's broke, and everyone else swoops in to make money off his work! Leaving the legal stuff aside, does this intuitively seem fair to you?!?
If you want to create things without monetary compensation, of course you have a right to do so. No one is arguing that. But you are trying to take away my right to decide whether I want to be compensated for my work. Who are you to make this decision unilaterally? If you don't think I should be compensated, then don't buy my creations, and I'll go broke! That would be a moral stand I could respect, unlike "I've decided that you don't get paid but I'll take your stuff anyway, thanks."
Its only because of the need to pay bills and maintain quality of life that people seek money. How many times have you seen a person going stir crazy after retiurement? They ahve the urge to work, and often get involved in little projects and building things, for love of working!
Well if you're going to pay for me to retire early, then you can have all my creations for free! If IP creators aren't paid, they'll never get to retire, hello!
Yes, authors should get paid. That does NOT mean that they have ANY right to stop a person from sharing with others.
Uh, when people "share with others" (i.e. steal IP), they are denying the author payment. What is the idea -- set the price of a book at $100,000, so only one has to be sold, then everyone else just "shares" free copies? You gonna be the one who buys that first copy?
Whether it is good economically or not is besides the point.
Well obviously you've decided it's irrelevant to you, because you're unconcerned with the rights of IP creators, only with your own desires.
I am fundamentally oposed to ANY law that says I can't share information with my friends. Its unenforcable at best, and, in my eyes, morally corrupt.
As I hope you're aware, whether it's "enforcable" or not is irrelevant to whether it's morally right or wrong. And you can of course share any information that you created with anyone you wish. You just can't share my creations with others, unless I agree. You don't like that? Then don't support my creations, support only people who give stuff away for free -- it will hasten the demise of people like me who insist on being paid. If you insist on stealing my creations, then clearly you think they have some value, even if you stubbornly refuse to pay for them.
I will not support the use of armed soldiers to support "restrictions on copying".
Now you're just being silly.
The copyrights/patents on a 1938 car have long since expired. Try making an exact replica of a 2001 Viper and wait for the lawyers to call. You are stealing -- you're stealing the design. Any idea how much time and money it costs to design a car? By stealing a design (IP), you're taking the fruits of someone else's intellectual labor without having to pay for its development.
It's not theft if nothing's missing.
What's missing is the revenues you've deprived them of. If you wouldn't have bought it anyway, then why is it such a big deal that you're denied it by IP laws?
Here's another way of looking at it. You spend a long time studying for an exam. You take the exam and do really well on it. The person next to you, however, didn't study at all and just watched you during the exam and copied your answers, thereby also getting top marks. They didn't deprive you of anything -- you still have your correct answers and good grades. But they took advantage of and devalued your hard work without compensating you. Is that fair?
Here's yet another example. You spend lots of money on CDs, DVDs, etc. Your next door neighbor knows you're on vacation for a week. They pick the lock on your front door, borrow all your CDs and DVDs, copy everything, then put all the originals back so you can't even tell they've been there. But they now have a CD/DVD collection for only the cost of a couple spindles' worth of blank discs, while you spent a good chunk of your paycheck amassing your collection. Do you think this is ok?
Can you add xeroxed magazine articles at the library?
Copying an article is generally agreed to fall under "fair use." Copying an entire issue usually costs more than buying the magazine.
Or read magazines at the supermarket checkout stand and then not buy them?
If you read most or all of the magazine without paying for it, shame on you. You're freeloading.
Or borrowed a CD/movie from a friend? Library books being read by people without full payment for that book going to the publisher for each person that checks out the book?
In all these cases, you don't get all the benefits of ownership, i.e. you only get to use it for a limited period of time before you have to return it to the owner, or the copy is not as good as the original. If you checked out a book, then scanned the whole thing at 2400 dpi and posted pdfs on the net, then yes, a lot of people do have a problem with that.