My immediate, instinctual position on copyright is: How Stupid. It is a fixed principle that unenforceable law is bad law; it does not deter, but it leaves in its wake disrespect for the Law in general.
Copyright may have made sense when the dominant medium was print and presses were moderately expensive. Few owned a press, and a publisher who violated copyright could reasonably be discovered and penalized. Now that millions have the equivalent of a (cheesy) printing press and teevee station, enforcement -- even if desirable -- can never be strict. At best, there can only be draconian examples made.
Then, there is the philosophical argument. Why should anyone, even the originator, be allowed to profit from the circulation of an idea and its expression? After all he has come to mean to us, doesn't M*cky belong to us all? If Shakespeare were alive today, would we permit him to monopolize the distribution of his works?
On the other hand, we do want to reward creators of good art, music, and software. The way we reward people is by paying them cash. So shouldn't the author of any work get paid every time somebody uses/views/listens to it?
OK! Let's tear the whole thing up.
In the Bad Old Days, when we wrote code, we only hoped that somebody, someday, somewhere, would take a piece of it and use it again. We competed for prestige; there was no dream of endless royalties. Of course, we got salaries (or at least hourlies) for writing the stuff in the first place. It was all so custom that our employers never thought to make a buck reselling any of it.
I'd like to see a return to this standard. Let's forget about charging money for ideas and their expressions. You can charge for printing a book, burning a disk, or sitting onstage and sawing away at a fiddle. You can't charge for the words, the bits, or the notes.
Most people are motivated to create "intellectual property" by the hope of making money. Most people -- I dare say the same people -- are untalented hacks. Their words are leaden, their code buggy, their music mindless noise. Take away the profit incentive, and at least some of those authors will go away and become lawyers and MBAs.
There will still be a great deal of bad art, but at least we won't be encouraging it by giving the creators money. Nor will we be keeping an army of leeches fat -- record execs and such. They will have to find something else to parasite, if there is no profit in Art.
Talented people will always create; for them, creation is a compulsion, a furious drive, a tornado of the soul. For many artists -- artists in all disciplines -- good and bad -- art is life. Chain them in a dungeon and toss the key; they will scratch the mouldering bricks. There is no need to pay them.
On the other hand, we'd rather not have starving artists. Too often, they die when they run out of food. Or they are unable to purchase simple materials of decent quality. (Many Old Masters used oils and varnishes of such poor quality that their paintings are now falling apart.)
So, we see, we have to give these angelic fools a basic living, a decent dole, to keep their ribs from showing through, to keep their garrets heated through the winter. And since we refuse to allow the market to discriminate between bad and good Art, we have to give this to everybody.
Whoops! See how a simple debate about copyright turns into Universal Socialism and Welfare? But if we don't pay the artists, then we have to give them the Basic Dole; and if we do that, we have to give it to anybody who asks for it -- many people fancy themselves artists.
But there really is no good reason for anybody to work, who does not want to do so. The necessities of life can be created freely by the machines; such human labor as remains will be done anyway, by those who enjoy it. I say necessities -- food, clothing, shelter. (That last comes with a proviso, that while there is plenty of room on Earth, we're not making any more of it. But that's another st
Attackers of many positions say "if this, then the slippery slope"; or "if this, then where do you draw the line"; and connect the position to be attacked with an absurd extremity.
I agree that it is fallacy to argue in this way. It is simply a lack of maturity. Growing up means learning to draw lines. It often means clutching to vague and shifting handholds to keep from sliding down slipperly slopes. It means exercising judgement.
There is a real position between extremes. Nobody should be allowed complete freedom to go off on his own and destroy the workings of our government; even if we mean to bring it down, we should do so together. And nobody should be arrested and imprisoned for speaking unwisely and recklessly.
The trouble is that we demand absolutes. Shades of gray are intolerable. Since we have so broadened the public discourse, we find we cannot any longer locate a standard of moderation.
An action today is either legal or illegal, nothing in between. We deny the right of family, clergy, or anyone else to put pressure on us to modify our behaviors. We think we have become more free, but instead, we see our freedoms eroded.
Social sanctions are important in every society. Indeed, most people, even Americans, are still controlled by social sanctions. The trouble is that we generally do not think of ourselves as members of society at large, subject to general authorities, such as the bygone parish priest or high school principal. We are only subject to the dictates of our little group, and if we don't like them, we are free to change groups. And, if we choose to belong to no group at all, we can still manage our daily lives. There is no legal requirement that one belong to a church, or even a bridge club.
Without the soft, ambiguous control of social sanctions, nothing is left between the individual and the State. This is seen as being to the individual's benefit, but the State is powerful. It must assume the burden of social arbitration -- bickering neighbors, feuding authors, careless drivers, all call 911. And although we now expect the State to intervene in every human disagreement, we cannot tolerate a humanized Justice. We demand that every ruling and action be scrupulously impartial.
Perhaps we were, on the average, better served by the small-time corrupt officials of old, who in their petty way at least allowed some sort of humanity to sway their edicts. Now we have forced the most corrupt to rewrite the laws so as to legitimize their corruption, meanwhile placing its price out of reach of the common man.
The poor fellow at the heart of this matter should never have been allowed to go so far off the deep end -- but that is not to say any branch of the government should ever have taken a hand. His friends, family, co-workers, poker buddies, clergy -- they are the ones who, in other societies, would have exerted pressure, outside of the criminal justice system, to get him to moderate his actions. He might well continue to protest the system, but more wisely.
Where do you draw the line? Where age, wisdom, and experience teaches you to draw it. And you often draw the line loosely, in a shade of gray. But you do draw it somewhere -- between totalitarianism and anarchy.
Modern society is like a machine without any oil. We believe, in our arrogance, that if the machine is perfectly built, there will be no friction, hence no need for lubrication or loose fit. Meanwhile, slaves to Progress, we drive the machine harder and faster, and cannot understand the meaning of the howling noises from within, nor extinguish the gouts of black smoke issuing from the cracks.
Slashdot Mirror
My immediate, instinctual position on copyright is: How Stupid. It is a fixed principle that unenforceable law is bad law; it does not deter, but it leaves in its wake disrespect for the Law in general.
Copyright may have made sense when the dominant medium was print and presses were moderately expensive. Few owned a press, and a publisher who violated copyright could reasonably be discovered and penalized. Now that millions have the equivalent of a (cheesy) printing press and teevee station, enforcement -- even if desirable -- can never be strict. At best, there can only be draconian examples made.
Then, there is the philosophical argument. Why should anyone, even the originator, be allowed to profit from the circulation of an idea and its expression? After all he has come to mean to us, doesn't M*cky belong to us all? If Shakespeare were alive today, would we permit him to monopolize the distribution of his works?
On the other hand, we do want to reward creators of good art, music, and software. The way we reward people is by paying them cash. So shouldn't the author of any work get paid every time somebody uses/views/listens to it?
OK! Let's tear the whole thing up.
In the Bad Old Days, when we wrote code, we only hoped that somebody, someday, somewhere, would take a piece of it and use it again. We competed for prestige; there was no dream of endless royalties. Of course, we got salaries (or at least hourlies) for writing the stuff in the first place. It was all so custom that our employers never thought to make a buck reselling any of it.
I'd like to see a return to this standard. Let's forget about charging money for ideas and their expressions. You can charge for printing a book, burning a disk, or sitting onstage and sawing away at a fiddle. You can't charge for the words, the bits, or the notes.
Most people are motivated to create "intellectual property" by the hope of making money. Most people -- I dare say the same people -- are untalented hacks. Their words are leaden, their code buggy, their music mindless noise. Take away the profit incentive, and at least some of those authors will go away and become lawyers and MBAs.
There will still be a great deal of bad art, but at least we won't be encouraging it by giving the creators money. Nor will we be keeping an army of leeches fat -- record execs and such. They will have to find something else to parasite, if there is no profit in Art.
Talented people will always create; for them, creation is a compulsion, a furious drive, a tornado of the soul. For many artists -- artists in all disciplines -- good and bad -- art is life. Chain them in a dungeon and toss the key; they will scratch the mouldering bricks. There is no need to pay them.
On the other hand, we'd rather not have starving artists. Too often, they die when they run out of food. Or they are unable to purchase simple materials of decent quality. (Many Old Masters used oils and varnishes of such poor quality that their paintings are now falling apart.)
So, we see, we have to give these angelic fools a basic living, a decent dole, to keep their ribs from showing through, to keep their garrets heated through the winter. And since we refuse to allow the market to discriminate between bad and good Art, we have to give this to everybody.
Whoops! See how a simple debate about copyright turns into Universal Socialism and Welfare? But if we don't pay the artists, then we have to give them the Basic Dole; and if we do that, we have to give it to anybody who asks for it -- many people fancy themselves artists.
But there really is no good reason for anybody to work, who does not want to do so. The necessities of life can be created freely by the machines; such human labor as remains will be done anyway, by those who enjoy it. I say necessities -- food, clothing, shelter. (That last comes with a proviso, that while there is plenty of room on Earth, we're not making any more of it. But that's another st
Attackers of many positions say "if this, then the slippery slope"; or "if this, then where do you draw the line"; and connect the position to be attacked with an absurd extremity.
I agree that it is fallacy to argue in this way. It is simply a lack of maturity. Growing up means learning to draw lines. It often means clutching to vague and shifting handholds to keep from sliding down slipperly slopes. It means exercising judgement.
There is a real position between extremes. Nobody should be allowed complete freedom to go off on his own and destroy the workings of our government; even if we mean to bring it down, we should do so together. And nobody should be arrested and imprisoned for speaking unwisely and recklessly.
The trouble is that we demand absolutes. Shades of gray are intolerable. Since we have so broadened the public discourse, we find we cannot any longer locate a standard of moderation.
An action today is either legal or illegal, nothing in between. We deny the right of family, clergy, or anyone else to put pressure on us to modify our behaviors. We think we have become more free, but instead, we see our freedoms eroded.
Social sanctions are important in every society. Indeed, most people, even Americans, are still controlled by social sanctions. The trouble is that we generally do not think of ourselves as members of society at large, subject to general authorities, such as the bygone parish priest or high school principal. We are only subject to the dictates of our little group, and if we don't like them, we are free to change groups. And, if we choose to belong to no group at all, we can still manage our daily lives. There is no legal requirement that one belong to a church, or even a bridge club.
Without the soft, ambiguous control of social sanctions, nothing is left between the individual and the State. This is seen as being to the individual's benefit, but the State is powerful. It must assume the burden of social arbitration -- bickering neighbors, feuding authors, careless drivers, all call 911. And although we now expect the State to intervene in every human disagreement, we cannot tolerate a humanized Justice. We demand that every ruling and action be scrupulously impartial.
Perhaps we were, on the average, better served by the small-time corrupt officials of old, who in their petty way at least allowed some sort of humanity to sway their edicts. Now we have forced the most corrupt to rewrite the laws so as to legitimize their corruption, meanwhile placing its price out of reach of the common man.
The poor fellow at the heart of this matter should never have been allowed to go so far off the deep end -- but that is not to say any branch of the government should ever have taken a hand. His friends, family, co-workers, poker buddies, clergy -- they are the ones who, in other societies, would have exerted pressure, outside of the criminal justice system, to get him to moderate his actions. He might well continue to protest the system, but more wisely.
Where do you draw the line? Where age, wisdom, and experience teaches you to draw it. And you often draw the line loosely, in a shade of gray. But you do draw it somewhere -- between totalitarianism and anarchy.
Modern society is like a machine without any oil. We believe, in our arrogance, that if the machine is perfectly built, there will be no friction, hence no need for lubrication or loose fit. Meanwhile, slaves to Progress, we drive the machine harder and faster, and cannot understand the meaning of the howling noises from within, nor extinguish the gouts of black smoke issuing from the cracks.