But, let's say I created a moon land registry where I recorded who owned which bit of land on the moon (initially I gave all the land away, but a secondary market was soon created). All buyers could buy & sell these plots and I'd revise the registry appropriately. Now would it be theft if a sneaky burglar adjusted the registry (so that a plot of land worth a few million bucks was put in the name of someone who previously owned only a hundred bucks worth?
Does it matter whether anyone can own land on the moon or not?
But, more importantly, as owner of the registry do I get sued for negligence (leaving my front door unlocked), even though I never realised people would buy and sell moon land for such large sums? I get paid nothing, I merely keep my registry up to date as a hobby, but because of the burglary other people lose millions.
The implications are that in order to cheaply patent their software (or achieve the same effect vis protecting patentable elements), developers are more likely to utilise Open Source licenses.
By publishing their source code at the earliest opportunity they can establish 'prior art' in case their software contains anything patentable.
If it should infringe any patents, these can be remedied at the time the infringement comes to light.
I foresee a new revenue model arising for software development, i.e. sale of the release of proprietary software into the public domain (GPL) - like Blender - and any patent infringement is then the responsibility of the public domain.
For example, what would happen, if after Blender was released GPL it turned out a year later that it infringed a software patent? Who sues who? Who is the defendant, and how are you going to track them down? The people who developed Blender? The people who sold it? The people who bought it? The people who use it?
The alternative is proprietary software everywhere, with extreme security and secrecy, and yet rife industrial espionage as bounties are paid to whistle blowers to reveal patent infringements in their employers' software. Because, as we know, it'll become increasingly difficult to write any software AND know who the hell has patented which bit of it so you can license it.
NB Nowhere do I condone infringement of copyright.
All I'm questioning is why some people such as you are so attached to it, as if it were an inalienable right, when all it is is just a granting of a monopoly on duplication to the creator of a work for a (supposedly) limited period.
Artists want their art to be seen by as many people as possible, and artists would like to earn a comfortable living.
On which tablets of stone is it written that artists have an inalienable right to restrict other people from creating 100% perfect duplicates of their work? If anything this brings the art to the attention of ever more people. Bonus!
The only problem is that if the artist thought that millions of people around the planet would say "No. I won't listen to that piece of music that's automatically appeared on my PC until I've properly reimbursed the artist or purchased a copy via the artist's authorised duplicators", then they've got a high opinion of people's self-restraint.
Really, the copyright based revenue model is gradually migrating towards the shareware model, i.e. it relies upon people's goodwill.
Now if you have confidence in people's goodwill then there's not much to choose between the two. However, if you don't have confidence, you'll choose a model that is unaffected by copying, or better still is positively the better for it, e.g. The Digital Art Auction.
As for the GPL. That is simply a way of trying to keep something in the public domain. The only people who can possibly infringe it are people who attempt to take the work away from the public domain. So the GPL doesn't require copyright, because without copyright everything is in the public domain anyway, and so who needs a GPL to keep it there?
I'm not worried about the RIAA. They represent dinosaurs who are struggling for breath given the rapid deoygenation of the copyright they've been used to for so long.
I'm simply wondering why the common man has so effectively been programmed to believe that copyright infringement is theft. So much so, that even if you remove copyright, people still think it's wrong to duplicate a file that contains an artist's work.
Ideas/art have value as you say as in X/Infinity or in proportion to 'Value of idea to humanity or one or more persons' and inversely to number of copies of this.
Thus 'Fermat's last theorem' was pretty valuable as the number of copies was zero or only a handful at most (if he ever got around to finding a big enough piece of paper).
If you burn nearly all the copies of the Catcher in the Rye, then copies become more valuable.
Maybe this is why no-one bothers to steal bibles? It's a good book, but the used paperback copies are worthless (except to a lonely Christian missionary in the Serengeti who burnt his last copy to keep warm at night).
Anyway, as the author or artist, it's probably best to sell the first copy for as much as you possibly can, because subsequent copies are highly likely to be worth about the value of the paper/acetate/magnetic substrate they're recorded on.
Who alone on this planet is working on a mechanism to sell this first copy?
Why should you have the right to control subsequent use of your work?
Eventually, it comes down to money.
The only possible reason for having this control is so that you alone can sell access to your work, i.e. to obtain financial encouragement to publish.
This copy-control legislation was enacted to promote the publication of art. It is a revenue mechanism nothing more. It is a contract the goverment enforces on the people's behalf.
However, it is not necessarily the only way that an artist can obtain financial reward for publishing their work. Indeed, it is because people assume that it is the only way, that it must therefore never be abandoned, that without it artists would starve, or choose different careers.
Think a bit harder and you see copyright for what it is: a mechanism that worked once, but is now getting less and less viable, especially when free diffusion of digital art is becoming the simplest manifestation.
It doesn't matter how much you wring your hands, you can't put the genie of digital diffusion back in the bottle. Keep copyright enshrined in law for the next millennium if you want. It won't affect the pragmatic necessity for artists to make money. Artists will not rely on copyright if it's plainly unreliable. They will sell the release of their art to you directly.
Can anyone really believe that we'll face a future in which no new art is ever created again, that artists will become extinct, and mankind will turn into the Borg?
Maybe people prefer the domesday scenario as a more comforting one?
Bear in mind that copyright has only existed for a couple of centuries. You cannot tell me that we had no art or artists before that time.
I suggest that if the world's population had immediate and direct access to artists and their art via the Internet, that copyright would be a hindrance rather than a help. Instantaneous and unfettered distribution of digital art would be demanded both by artists as well as their audiences. P2P/file sharing systems move us closer to this artistic utopia - not further away.
Remember, the quicker the artist can communicate with their audience, the quicker they can make a deal, sell the art, and release it.
The fundamental idea that is plainly broken in the digital domain is the idea that you can sell each copy, ONE BY ONE!
No.
You have to sell the release of the art, en masse.
I do not believe in stealing someone else's copyrighted material.
Why not?
Or perhaps you should say "I do not condone the wilful infringment of someone else's materials' copyright"?
Or perhaps you should say "I still support the use of copyright as a viable revenue model which artists can use to profit from publication of their works"?
Remember that 'copyright' is a legal construct solely designed to encourage publication and not a human or moral right. The moral right is attribution (among other things).
If there were other encouragements for artists to publish their work, one of these could be used instead of copyright. For example, in the absence of copyright, an artist might decide not to publish their work UNTIL AFTER they'd received revenue from the market.
Fortunately, such a model can still be used even before copyright has been abandoned.
Check out The Digital Art Auction
to see one of the many ways in which artists could sell their art in the future (with or without copyright).
With the advent of P2P/file sharing on the Internet there are many alternatives to encourage publication that weren't available a couple of centuries ago...
Not many people know this, but there is a new revenue model that enables sale of Open Source based games: The Digital Art Auction
.
Here's an article that describes how it could apply to the games industry: The Bedroom Coder's Business Model
SCO have now simply underlined the fact that GNU/Linux is worth more than Windows.
MS Surely wouldn't want anyone to suggest that Windows was a product of lesser value? So MS can't possibly be in favour of SCO's action - if they were, they'd persuade SCO to set the price at a derisory $100.
So, GNU/Linux is at one and the same time, not only more valuable than Windows, but it is free.
If copying is a particular problem for
digital content (such as music), then instead of retailing it one copy at a time
(on CDs), or giving up and distributing it as Open Content, why not sell it in one go first and then release it as Open Content?
It's very similar to retail: everyone
pays the same price, which is set by what the market will bear, but this time
the price is set and the sale made, by the purchasers en masse - in advance of
the release. This enables the creator to obtain the bulk of their revenue before
their content can be copied.
Slashdot Mirror
But, let's say I created a moon land registry where I recorded who owned which bit of land on the moon (initially I gave all the land away, but a secondary market was soon created). All buyers could buy & sell these plots and I'd revise the registry appropriately. Now would it be theft if a sneaky burglar adjusted the registry (so that a plot of land worth a few million bucks was put in the name of someone who previously owned only a hundred bucks worth?
Does it matter whether anyone can own land on the moon or not?
But, more importantly, as owner of the registry do I get sued for negligence (leaving my front door unlocked), even though I never realised people would buy and sell moon land for such large sums? I get paid nothing, I merely keep my registry up to date as a hobby, but because of the burglary other people lose millions.
"...hanging up on a telemarker at dinner time"
I wouldn't hang up on a telemarker. You should see their kneel turns!
I'd fancy some telemarking any day!
Interesting how memories deteriorate over time eh?
At least there's a phonetic similarity.
I guess Hari Seldon would have something to say about that too...
Wouldn't Harry Wheldon have something to say on this subject?
The implications are that in order to cheaply patent their software (or achieve the same effect vis protecting patentable elements), developers are more likely to utilise Open Source licenses.
By publishing their source code at the earliest opportunity they can establish 'prior art' in case their software contains anything patentable.
If it should infringe any patents, these can be remedied at the time the infringement comes to light.
I foresee a new revenue model arising for software development, i.e. sale of the release of proprietary software into the public domain (GPL) - like Blender - and any patent infringement is then the responsibility of the public domain.
For example, what would happen, if after Blender was released GPL it turned out a year later that it infringed a software patent? Who sues who? Who is the defendant, and how are you going to track them down? The people who developed Blender? The people who sold it? The people who bought it? The people who use it?
The alternative is proprietary software everywhere, with extreme security and secrecy, and yet rife industrial espionage as bounties are paid to whistle blowers to reveal patent infringements in their employers' software. Because, as we know, it'll become increasingly difficult to write any software AND know who the hell has patented which bit of it so you can license it.
If you're looking for something better than Direct3D, you should check out the Q engine by Qube Software.
:)
Q 3D Engine
(FREE DOWNLOAD for Windows & Linux)
You may be interested to note that this is produced by some of the same engineers who produced Direct3D. Can't be that bad then eh?
PS I once worked for Qube, so I'm probably biased.
Thats what you want.
PERFECT.
Avant Prime
The Digital Art Auction
is your answer...
At that point, copyright holders would have to find a different business model to survive
I like your thinking.
The Digital Art Auction
protection^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H licensing
Long live the teletype idiom eh?
NB Nowhere do I condone infringement of copyright.
All I'm questioning is why some people such as you are so attached to it, as if it were an inalienable right, when all it is is just a granting of a monopoly on duplication to the creator of a work for a (supposedly) limited period.
Artists want their art to be seen by as many people as possible, and artists would like to earn a comfortable living.
On which tablets of stone is it written that artists have an inalienable right to restrict other people from creating 100% perfect duplicates of their work? If anything this brings the art to the attention of ever more people. Bonus!
The only problem is that if the artist thought that millions of people around the planet would say "No. I won't listen to that piece of music that's automatically appeared on my PC until I've properly reimbursed the artist or purchased a copy via the artist's authorised duplicators", then they've got a high opinion of people's self-restraint.
Really, the copyright based revenue model is gradually migrating towards the shareware model, i.e. it relies upon people's goodwill.
Now if you have confidence in people's goodwill then there's not much to choose between the two. However, if you don't have confidence, you'll choose a model that is unaffected by copying, or better still is positively the better for it, e.g. The Digital Art Auction.
As for the GPL. That is simply a way of trying to keep something in the public domain. The only people who can possibly infringe it are people who attempt to take the work away from the public domain. So the GPL doesn't require copyright, because without copyright everything is in the public domain anyway, and so who needs a GPL to keep it there?
I'm not worried about the RIAA. They represent dinosaurs who are struggling for breath given the rapid deoygenation of the copyright they've been used to for so long.
I'm simply wondering why the common man has so effectively been programmed to believe that copyright infringement is theft. So much so, that even if you remove copyright, people still think it's wrong to duplicate a file that contains an artist's work.
Time to deprogram.
Yep, you're pretty much on the ball.
A note re 2.
Ideas/art have value as you say as in X/Infinity or in proportion to 'Value of idea to humanity or one or more persons' and inversely to number of copies of this.
Thus 'Fermat's last theorem' was pretty valuable as the number of copies was zero or only a handful at most (if he ever got around to finding a big enough piece of paper).
If you burn nearly all the copies of the Catcher in the Rye, then copies become more valuable.
Maybe this is why no-one bothers to steal bibles? It's a good book, but the used paperback copies are worthless (except to a lonely Christian missionary in the Serengeti who burnt his last copy to keep warm at night).
Anyway, as the author or artist, it's probably best to sell the first copy for as much as you possibly can, because subsequent copies are highly likely to be worth about the value of the paper/acetate/magnetic substrate they're recorded on.
Who alone on this planet is working on a mechanism to sell this first copy?
Me.
The point is: Why do you believe this?
Why should you have the right to control subsequent use of your work?
Eventually, it comes down to money.
The only possible reason for having this control is so that you alone can sell access to your work, i.e. to obtain financial encouragement to publish.
This copy-control legislation was enacted to promote the publication of art. It is a revenue mechanism nothing more. It is a contract the goverment enforces on the people's behalf.
However, it is not necessarily the only way that an artist can obtain financial reward for publishing their work. Indeed, it is because people assume that it is the only way, that it must therefore never be abandoned, that without it artists would starve, or choose different careers.
Think a bit harder and you see copyright for what it is: a mechanism that worked once, but is now getting less and less viable, especially when free diffusion of digital art is becoming the simplest manifestation.
It doesn't matter how much you wring your hands, you can't put the genie of digital diffusion back in the bottle. Keep copyright enshrined in law for the next millennium if you want. It won't affect the pragmatic necessity for artists to make money. Artists will not rely on copyright if it's plainly unreliable. They will sell the release of their art to you directly.
People really need to think about this harder.
Can anyone really believe that we'll face a future in which no new art is ever created again, that artists will become extinct, and mankind will turn into the Borg?
Maybe people prefer the domesday scenario as a more comforting one?
Bear in mind that copyright has only existed for a couple of centuries. You cannot tell me that we had no art or artists before that time.
I suggest that if the world's population had immediate and direct access to artists and their art via the Internet, that copyright would be a hindrance rather than a help. Instantaneous and unfettered distribution of digital art would be demanded both by artists as well as their audiences. P2P/file sharing systems move us closer to this artistic utopia - not further away.
Remember, the quicker the artist can communicate with their audience, the quicker they can make a deal, sell the art, and release it.
The fundamental idea that is plainly broken in the digital domain is the idea that you can sell each copy, ONE BY ONE!
No.
You have to sell the release of the art, en masse.
Here's a way: The Digital Art Auction
Why not?
Or perhaps you should say "I do not condone the wilful infringment of someone else's materials' copyright"?
Or perhaps you should say "I still support the use of copyright as a viable revenue model which artists can use to profit from publication of their works"?
Remember that 'copyright' is a legal construct solely designed to encourage publication and not a human or moral right. The moral right is attribution (among other things).
If there were other encouragements for artists to publish their work, one of these could be used instead of copyright. For example, in the absence of copyright, an artist might decide not to publish their work UNTIL AFTER they'd received revenue from the market.
Fortunately, such a model can still be used even before copyright has been abandoned.
Check out The Digital Art Auction to see one of the many ways in which artists could sell their art in the future (with or without copyright).
With the advent of P2P/file sharing on the Internet there are many alternatives to encourage publication that weren't available a couple of centuries ago...
Not many people know this, but there is a new revenue model that enables sale of Open Source based games:
The Digital Art Auction .
Here's an article that describes how it could apply to the games industry:
The Bedroom Coder's Business Model
SCO have now simply underlined the fact that GNU/Linux is worth more than Windows.
MS Surely wouldn't want anyone to suggest that Windows was a product of lesser value? So MS can't possibly be in favour of SCO's action - if they were, they'd persuade SCO to set the price at a derisory $100.
So, GNU/Linux is at one and the same time, not only more valuable than Windows, but it is free.
Sounds like a good deal to me.
If copying is a particular problem for digital content (such as music), then instead of retailing it one copy at a time (on CDs), or giving up and distributing it as Open Content, why not sell it in one go first and then release it as Open Content?
It's very similar to retail: everyone pays the same price, which is set by what the market will bear, but this time the price is set and the sale made, by the purchasers en masse - in advance of the release. This enables the creator to obtain the bulk of their revenue before their content can be copied.
The Digital Art AuctionAnswer yet to be found?
How about The Digital Art Auction ?