"It's not illegal for the operator to touch the reel."
Right.
"It's not illegal for the operator to own copying equipment."
Right.
"It might be against a contract (but still not illegal) for the operator to copy the reel."
False! He cannot copy the reel for his own with company equipment: it would be not only contract violation but abuse of company assets too. He cannot copy the reel with his own equipment in company premises: it would be trespassing. He cannot take out the reel for copying with his own equipment out of company premises: it would be robbering.
"It's not illegal for the operator to sell the copy of the reel. "
Correction: it wouldn't be illegal to sell a copy of the reel *obtained by legal means*. But I see no way for that to be achieved without the explicit allowance from the studio.
"no one would be breaking the law"
The original copyist would do. The others would be either deprived from ther copies, since they were gotten by unlawful means or even requested for damages if there's a clear case that they should have a fair knowledge of the fraudulent origin of their copy (as it would be the case for a copy that couldn't be gotten by any other means than breaking the original studio's confidence -remember it was not delivered for public consumption yet).
"So you want back the times where many artists were financed by nobility. Where did that money come from again? Taxes - so you want a music creation tax to pay for your free music. It's as simple as that."
So I want back the times where many artists were financed by rich men. Where did that money come from again? Profit - so I want a music creation payed by those that can allow it. It's as simple as that.
"So if there were no music you could copy, you would finally be happy."
Since I feel as more probable for me to copy Bach's St. Matthew Passion or Mozart's Magic Flute than some Britney Spears hit, I'm not too worried. Surely you don't forget that even if not a single song were composed from now on that would not mean everything done to date would disapear, do you?
"Nobody has that kind of wealth nowadays; Gates and the Waltons aren't nearly as wealthy, proportionately, as the wealthiest people back then."
Even agreeing with that (which I don't) it really doesn't matter if today's millionaires are as rich as the old ones but if they are rich *enough*. Hint: they certainly are. Even modeslty rich people (as in "not getting into People's or Newsweek frontpage") can and do pay for say, a dozen people at their service. Just to put things in perspective, a man than can buy a ten million dolar house (certainly rich, but at the reach of thousands or maybe even tens of thousands of people in the world) equals to pay my current wages for about two centuries and a half, so don't tell me they can't afford a biographer or a compositor. Hell, since some people can buy van Gogh's sunflowers they can certainly pay wages for a painter if they are so inclined.
"Do you know any billionaires who would commission new video games, comic books, or Hollywood blockbusters?"
Probably not but d'you know what? That's not art; that's bussiness and as such, that means that if there's no money to be made producing video games or blockbusters it would be used elsewhere. It might even go into something really productive like ending world's famine or better roads... hey, dreaming is for free. On the other hand, how it is that you get worried that maybe Sony or Walt Disney would collapse but you are not worried that Sony and Walt Disney effectively killed simphonic compositors with their 3'40" hits?
"Intellectual property creates artificial scarcity, yes, but it also creates a viable market for information."
Do you know the economic parable of the "broken window"? For the most part that's the case of intellectual property and its artificial scarcity.
"now what if bach had no patrons because everyone already has a copy of his music"
You should inform yourself a bit better next time. It's Bach, not quantum mechanics!
Bach was paid for: 1) Taking care of the church 2) Playing the organ 3) Composing *new* music
How any of them has anything to do with copyright?
On the other hand, Bach copied *tons* of music scripts and they influenced their own compositions. Unfortunately, Bach was not so reknown when live as a compositor as he was for his abilities playing organ or else you can bet his compositions would have been copied left and right as it was typical in the day. On the other, please remember that one thing is copyright and quite a different one authorship attribution. A noble would contract an artist because of the beautiful things he would *produce*. Oh! do you like this music? it was composed by *my* chappelmeister. Oh! so it's king's birthday? Do you know who will write/compose/paint his elegy/canon/portrait? *My* chamber biographer/musician/painter. I'm the greatest, ain't I?
"what if michelangelo's works were copied by every chapel wanting his renderings on their ceilings, and they were copied without paying him"
What? Do you seem to forget that an artist was paid for: a) His imagination, which can be copied but after the fact (naaah, naaah... you little thingie! can't even have your own artists that you have to copy our sculputures? how, how, how!) b) His ability, which can't be reproduced. You contracted Goya because he was Goya; you wanted Velazquez because he was Velazquez... or Monteverdi, or Ruy Lopez.
"these are issues that need solutions"
Yes: usually lack of culture can be solution by reading.
" if you had this fantasy matter duplicator, that made identical copies.. Then everything goes out the window anyway."
Except for... the duplicating machine itself, of course:
`(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
`(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
`(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
`(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
Do you know that text? It's from DMCA; minor variations could be aplied to the "copying artifact".
"incentive to create new original things, would I suppose just become a matter of fame and reputation, as opposed to monetary. "
Quite on the contrary. Once access to already done things were trivial, original things would be of enormous valor: anyone could duplicate, say, van Gogh's sunflowers, but no one could duplicate things not yet in the public. Instead of pushing at Chritie's for the sunflowers they would do it with the *next* work (still unreleased) from the 'artist do jour' and it would be a sign of power being able to say "See this Whatever? It's mine and hasn't been duplicated". Such a thing would cost bazillions.
"I can't speak for the rest of what you said, but your assertion about Mozart is refuted in "Mozart as a Working Stiff" by Professor Neal Zaslaw"
And what was my assertion about Mozart but that Mozart didn't rely on copyrights... but on somebody paying him for 'ex professo' works which, so it seems, is exactly the point of Professor Neal Zaslaw too?
"That is correct in that success is not a right however neither do you have the right to use the property of others if they do not want you to."
I know it's quite easy accepting groupal thinking without challenging it but please, try to argument the notion that some abstract combination of ones and zeroes already released to the public can be the sole property of some entity in a way that makes sense, and I bet you will find yourself in muddy deep waters quite fastly.
"But it wouldn't be illegal without copyrights. He wouldn't sell the actual physical property, but only its copy."
Copy impossible to be done unless someone either took a reel out of premises to make the copy (illegal), or used materials and machinery from their legit owner to make the copy within premises (illegal too).
What he could legally do would be to learn about the plot of Warner's next movie and tell it to Universal but a) Looking how currently studios tend to produce the same kind of films even within current legal system (falling asteroids? three the same month. Superheroes season? Dumb the last one...) it doesn't seem to be such a problem. b) Plain contract law: if you tell to Universal our next film's plot you'll be fired, you will have to pay us a bazillion for damages and we'll own your first born. Sign on the cross, please (by the way, this could be possible for the "copy problem" too, even if it were a problem, which I don't see).
"The search engines offered their services for free because they found someone else to pay for it."
Blah, blah, blah. The point is some companies saw a way for a profit where others (i.e. me) didn't. Now there are some entities (i.e. you) that aren't able to see how a profit could be made but in the current 'statu quo' game. The point is that this only means that you won't make a profit then, not that a profit can't be made. I already gave examples of how such a profit could be made. Not that it's my bussiness find such a profit means but anyway.
"Unless, of course, your argument is with my saying "I don't know" as if it were an argument."
Unless, of course, it *is* an argument. I'm not on the exploting copyright laws bussiness so it is not me the one that has to show anyone alternative means to earn a life; that's up to the one that wants to go that path.
To be precise, (part of) my argument is not "I don't know" but "it's not my bussiness: I don't have to know and I don't care".
"So without copyrights, artists would only have the ability to negotiate pay for future work."
I can basically agree on that point. So what? On one hand, that's what everybody else, we mere mortals, can do and it doesn't seem to be such a bad situation. I for one, can't negotiate pay for my past work. On the other, I could bet all Warner's expected benefits for Casablanca were those to be made on the few weeks of first exhibition (as states the fact that in those days films were produced by the dozens so they could put a new one on theaters almost every weekend) which could easily be protected without the need of copyright laws, much less current draconian copyright laws. Once the studio had assured their expected benefits even the 'statu quo' could be maintained without copyrights, since everybody else in the chain (director, actors, musicians, decorators, scripters...) could be paid per their current to-be-made work.
"To me the argument is about the abstract notion of ownership as a tool for negotiation."
I can *say* I own your soul, and certainly if you believe me I could use that as a negotiation tool. But me saying so doesn't make it any more true. Some people, even some laws, can *say* that something untangible and already disseminated to the public domain is still the sole property of somebody. They so saying won't make it truer, either.
"I simply don't see how they could have risen to the same level of popularity (through what mechanism) other than a mass-distribution chain that studios provided."
On a side note, I didn't see, back in the early ninetees, how anybody could find a way to make billions out of spidering the Internet and offering back their search results for free. To be honest I still don't clearly see it now.
That doesn't mean it can't be done. It only means it won't be me the one that will do it.
"Because they were produced by for-profit corporations whose business models relied on copyrights."
That doesn't mean that other bussiness models wouldn't be able to achieve the same results. I already offered examples (valid examples, since they are taken from equivalent industries from the time -*any* distribution chain made and still makes their day by phisically protecting their merchants) of how Casablanca could have been produced and profited from without copyrights. In the case of Warner it would have been enough to own their cinema theatres: if people wanted to see Casablanca they should cash out their ticket. It seem like a valid bussiness plan to me (and in fact, it was: cinema theaters were profitable even without controlling producers or distributors). Even more, it would made for stronger brand recognition (i.e.: Warner cinemas are better than Universal's... it's easy to remember where did you see a film, specially back in the day, but who remember the Studio producing this or that film except for a bunch of cinema freaks)?
"It concerns me that people think they can use the product of my mind for free and against my wishes."
The product of your mind doesn't seem to be so valuable if you can't find the answer yourself. Do Not Make It Public and no one will be able to use it against your wishes. There.
"Don't the rights of those who create the content matter?"
Of course they matter. You have the right to make it public or not make it public. Your choice.
And then, you will ask, how am I going to earn a live out of the product of my mind if I don't make it public? That, of course, would show again the product of your mind not being so valuable but, anyway, I'll help you. Hint: don't make it public unless somebody, per contract, agrees to give you a reasonably enough amount of money for the products of your mind. Then pass the products of your mind to him without worry. Hey! now that I think of it, that's what do everybody else! They don't give nothing unless a price is previously agreed. How cute of them!
"If you manage to invent a device that makes "scrumping" as easy as copying songs, you'll win a Nobel Prize and put an end to poverty and hunger."
Maybe you'd win a Nobel Prize out of first moment surprise but you can bet that once the dust settles tremendous pressure to control it and make it illegal out of thightly controlled channels (those controlled by big corporations, of course).
Too cynical, are you saying? Well, on one hand it *is* already illegal (copyright and patents would disallow your simple "scrumping") and regarding poverty and hunger... if that was a legit goal please explain me why both EU and USA *pay* for *not* producing basic foods like wheat or milk or why such foods are destroyed to control overproduction instead of sending it to starving countries (no; it is not to control prices: you can't control prices not giving milk for free to Ethiopia since they are not going to buy it at any price).
"without copyrights, there would never had been either Casablanca nor the Beatles."
And that you know... exactly how?
Without copyrights there is Illiad, Oddissey, Eneid and all ancient literature. Theater never needed copyright to work out, nor novels by chapters like those of Dumas.
Films during the 30's, 40's, 50's... still needed complex infrastructures in place for delivering and show so I don't see why couldn't Warner produce Casablanca in order to show it on Warner's cinemas all over the country and protect the reels not by copyright but by simple physical means: no other cinema could get a decent copy of Casablanca unless they bougth to Warner or steal (which is punible by itself) from it.
And what about the Beatles? Do they need any copyright to protect their ability to play their songs in concerts? Certainly others could play their songs but others are *not* The Beatles (The Real Thing TM). And certainly it was not copyright what gave us Bach, Vivaldi or Mozart.
The world being the way it is doesn't mean that's the only way the world could be.
" For people who supposedly pride themselves rational thought, have you ever taken a step back to look at your own views?"
Yes.
"And how do they get paid if anyone can replicate their content for free?"
By-Some-Other-Means.
Yes: it's as simply as that. It is on the side of the one that want to make some money the burden of finding the ways of it, nobody else's.
But if you want some examples, Michelangello produced some nice forms of art. How? By finding someone wanting to pay him for that. But, hey, maybe you don't think that example to be representative since Michelangello didn't produce music. So be it. J.S. Bach, maybe you heard about him, made a live out of composing and playing music. How was that possible? Well, by finding someone wanting to pay him for that. What would have happened if nobody wanted to pay Bach? He simply would have find another way to earn for a living. If distributing media is a bussiness no more, just find a different bussiness.
As simply as that. Really.
"You really think that the "freedom" to steal an author's or musician's work is the same as the freedom to criticize government policies? You're acting like a child."
Crab mentality... Humm, I think I like that concept.
"Yes, but for bridges and highways there is a lower limit based upon public safety and maintenance costs."
Regarding "maintenance costs", they are there within the "cheaper" part, since usually maintenance gets out the same pockets than forefront costs (if not, wait for cheaper bridges even with higher maintenance costs if possible).
Regarding "public safety" there's not such a thing. There are "regulations in place I should adhere if I want to avoid really big problems". Bridges or highways still go to the lowest bidder.
Yes. And you can even go beyond that. If their answer to your "I run Linux" is "but... run Windows then", you could use the everloved windozer answer: Hey, I'm here to learn [whatever], not to waste my time with learning computers, so I use Linux and don't want to waste my time learning Windows. Even if it doesn't work you will have some fun time doing it (unless you are there to learn IT, of course).
Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about.
"I'm certain that it is, the problem is not software developers, the problem is the complexity and cost of engineering."
Can you really talk on a straight face about "engineering" without considering "complexity and cost"?
"given an infinite budget"
Given an infinite budget you are lightyears away from anything resembling "engineering" to start with.
"and the right people"
Again, if you need for your project to name your people by name and surname instead of qualifications you are lightyears away from anything resembling "engineering".
"The real problem with most software development ("engineerng") is time and budget"
As in building bridges the problem is *not* time and budget? Next time someone wants to build a mile-wide bridge I'll offer building it myself only... with a teaspoon -for a trillion.
It's not only that most software so selfcalled "engineers" seem not to have been exposed to anything resembling "engineering" but that haven't been exposed to nothing remotely resembling "common sense" either.
"Unlike "Software Engineering", a "real" engineer might just actually consider whether the material could stand up under the expected strain. Plus at least 10%. No just "good enough"."
If a "real engineer" doesn't understand what "good enough" means within context what you have is a "real..ly shitty engineer". Might be your case.
Slashdot Mirror
"It's not illegal for the operator to touch the reel."
Right.
"It's not illegal for the operator to own copying equipment."
Right.
"It might be against a contract (but still not illegal) for the operator to copy the reel."
False! He cannot copy the reel for his own with company equipment: it would be not only contract violation but abuse of company assets too. He cannot copy the reel with his own equipment in company premises: it would be trespassing. He cannot take out the reel for copying with his own equipment out of company premises: it would be robbering.
"It's not illegal for the operator to sell the copy of the reel. "
Correction: it wouldn't be illegal to sell a copy of the reel *obtained by legal means*. But I see no way for that to be achieved without the explicit allowance from the studio.
"no one would be breaking the law"
The original copyist would do. The others would be either deprived from ther copies, since they were gotten by unlawful means or even requested for damages if there's a clear case that they should have a fair knowledge of the fraudulent origin of their copy (as it would be the case for a copy that couldn't be gotten by any other means than breaking the original studio's confidence -remember it was not delivered for public consumption yet).
"So you want back the times where many artists were financed by nobility. Where did that money come from again? Taxes - so you want a music creation tax to pay for your free music. It's as simple as that."
So I want back the times where many artists were financed by rich men. Where did that money come from again? Profit - so I want a music creation payed by those that can allow it. It's as simple as that.
"So if there were no music you could copy, you would finally be happy."
Since I feel as more probable for me to copy Bach's St. Matthew Passion or Mozart's Magic Flute than some Britney Spears hit, I'm not too worried. Surely you don't forget that even if not a single song were composed from now on that would not mean everything done to date would disapear, do you?
"Nobody has that kind of wealth nowadays; Gates and the Waltons aren't nearly as wealthy, proportionately, as the wealthiest people back then."
Even agreeing with that (which I don't) it really doesn't matter if today's millionaires are as rich as the old ones but if they are rich *enough*. Hint: they certainly are. Even modeslty rich people (as in "not getting into People's or Newsweek frontpage") can and do pay for say, a dozen people at their service. Just to put things in perspective, a man than can buy a ten million dolar house (certainly rich, but at the reach of thousands or maybe even tens of thousands of people in the world) equals to pay my current wages for about two centuries and a half, so don't tell me they can't afford a biographer or a compositor. Hell, since some people can buy van Gogh's sunflowers they can certainly pay wages for a painter if they are so inclined.
"Do you know any billionaires who would commission new video games, comic books, or Hollywood blockbusters?"
Probably not but d'you know what? That's not art; that's bussiness and as such, that means that if there's no money to be made producing video games or blockbusters it would be used elsewhere. It might even go into something really productive like ending world's famine or better roads... hey, dreaming is for free. On the other hand, how it is that you get worried that maybe Sony or Walt Disney would collapse but you are not worried that Sony and Walt Disney effectively killed simphonic compositors with their 3'40" hits?
"Intellectual property creates artificial scarcity, yes, but it also creates a viable market for information."
Do you know the economic parable of the "broken window"? For the most part that's the case of intellectual property and its artificial scarcity.
"now what if bach had no patrons because everyone already has a copy of his music"
You should inform yourself a bit better next time. It's Bach, not quantum mechanics!
Bach was paid for:
1) Taking care of the church
2) Playing the organ
3) Composing *new* music
How any of them has anything to do with copyright?
On the other hand, Bach copied *tons* of music scripts and they influenced their own compositions. Unfortunately, Bach was not so reknown when live as a compositor as he was for his abilities playing organ or else you can bet his compositions would have been copied left and right as it was typical in the day. On the other, please remember that one thing is copyright and quite a different one authorship attribution. A noble would contract an artist because of the beautiful things he would *produce*. Oh! do you like this music? it was composed by *my* chappelmeister. Oh! so it's king's birthday? Do you know who will write/compose/paint his elegy/canon/portrait? *My* chamber biographer/musician/painter. I'm the greatest, ain't I?
"what if michelangelo's works were copied by every chapel wanting his renderings on their ceilings, and they were copied without paying him"
What? Do you seem to forget that an artist was paid for:
a) His imagination, which can be copied but after the fact (naaah, naaah... you little thingie! can't even have your own artists that you have to copy our sculputures? how, how, how!)
b) His ability, which can't be reproduced. You contracted Goya because he was Goya; you wanted Velazquez because he was Velazquez... or Monteverdi, or Ruy Lopez.
"these are issues that need solutions"
Yes: usually lack of culture can be solution by reading.
" if you had this fantasy matter duplicator, that made identical copies.. Then everything goes out the window anyway."
Except for... the duplicating machine itself, of course:
`(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
`(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
`(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
`(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
Do you know that text? It's from DMCA; minor variations could be aplied to the "copying artifact".
"incentive to create new original things, would I suppose just become a matter of fame and reputation, as opposed to monetary. "
Quite on the contrary. Once access to already done things were trivial, original things would be of enormous valor: anyone could duplicate, say, van Gogh's sunflowers, but no one could duplicate things not yet in the public. Instead of pushing at Chritie's for the sunflowers they would do it with the *next* work (still unreleased) from the 'artist do jour' and it would be a sign of power being able to say "See this Whatever? It's mine and hasn't been duplicated". Such a thing would cost bazillions.
"I can't speak for the rest of what you said, but your assertion about Mozart is refuted in "Mozart as a Working Stiff" by Professor Neal Zaslaw"
And what was my assertion about Mozart but that Mozart didn't rely on copyrights... but on somebody paying him for 'ex professo' works which, so it seems, is exactly the point of Professor Neal Zaslaw too?
"That is correct in that success is not a right however neither do you have the right to use the property of others if they do not want you to."
I know it's quite easy accepting groupal thinking without challenging it but please, try to argument the notion that some abstract combination of ones and zeroes already released to the public can be the sole property of some entity in a way that makes sense, and I bet you will find yourself in muddy deep waters quite fastly.
"But it wouldn't be illegal without copyrights. He wouldn't sell the actual physical property, but only its copy."
Copy impossible to be done unless someone either took a reel out of premises to make the copy (illegal), or used materials and machinery from their legit owner to make the copy within premises (illegal too).
What he could legally do would be to learn about the plot of Warner's next movie and tell it to Universal but
a) Looking how currently studios tend to produce the same kind of films even within current legal system (falling asteroids? three the same month. Superheroes season? Dumb the last one...) it doesn't seem to be such a problem.
b) Plain contract law: if you tell to Universal our next film's plot you'll be fired, you will have to pay us a bazillion for damages and we'll own your first born. Sign on the cross, please (by the way, this could be possible for the "copy problem" too, even if it were a problem, which I don't see).
"The search engines offered their services for free because they found someone else to pay for it."
Blah, blah, blah. The point is some companies saw a way for a profit where others (i.e. me) didn't. Now there are some entities (i.e. you) that aren't able to see how a profit could be made but in the current 'statu quo' game. The point is that this only means that you won't make a profit then, not that a profit can't be made. I already gave examples of how such a profit could be made. Not that it's my bussiness find such a profit means but anyway.
"Unless, of course, your argument is with my saying "I don't know" as if it were an argument."
Unless, of course, it *is* an argument. I'm not on the exploting copyright laws bussiness so it is not me the one that has to show anyone alternative means to earn a life; that's up to the one that wants to go that path.
To be precise, (part of) my argument is not "I don't know" but "it's not my bussiness: I don't have to know and I don't care".
"So without copyrights, artists would only have the ability to negotiate pay for future work."
I can basically agree on that point. So what? On one hand, that's what everybody else, we mere mortals, can do and it doesn't seem to be such a bad situation. I for one, can't negotiate pay for my past work. On the other, I could bet all Warner's expected benefits for Casablanca were those to be made on the few weeks of first exhibition (as states the fact that in those days films were produced by the dozens so they could put a new one on theaters almost every weekend) which could easily be protected without the need of copyright laws, much less current draconian copyright laws. Once the studio had assured their expected benefits even the 'statu quo' could be maintained without copyrights, since everybody else in the chain (director, actors, musicians, decorators, scripters...) could be paid per their current to-be-made work.
"To me the argument is about the abstract notion of ownership as a tool for negotiation."
I can *say* I own your soul, and certainly if you believe me I could use that as a negotiation tool. But me saying so doesn't make it any more true. Some people, even some laws, can *say* that something untangible and already disseminated to the public domain is still the sole property of somebody. They so saying won't make it truer, either.
"But without copyright any film operator could have secretly made a copy and sell it to a competing studio."
You don't need copyright laws to protect you from, you know, plain robbery.
But without copyright any mine operator could have taken out my mine's diamonds and sell them to a competing diamond trader... oh, wait!
"Your plan would destroy nearly the entire software industry."
Two remarks:
1) Even if you are right, it would destroy nearly the entire software industry AS WE KNOW IT.
2) So what?
"I simply don't see how they could have risen to the same level of popularity (through what mechanism) other than a mass-distribution chain that studios provided."
On a side note, I didn't see, back in the early ninetees, how anybody could find a way to make billions out of spidering the Internet and offering back their search results for free. To be honest I still don't clearly see it now.
That doesn't mean it can't be done. It only means it won't be me the one that will do it.
"Because they were produced by for-profit corporations whose business models relied on copyrights."
That doesn't mean that other bussiness models wouldn't be able to achieve the same results. I already offered examples (valid examples, since they are taken from equivalent industries from the time -*any* distribution chain made and still makes their day by phisically protecting their merchants) of how Casablanca could have been produced and profited from without copyrights. In the case of Warner it would have been enough to own their cinema theatres: if people wanted to see Casablanca they should cash out their ticket. It seem like a valid bussiness plan to me (and in fact, it was: cinema theaters were profitable even without controlling producers or distributors). Even more, it would made for stronger brand recognition (i.e.: Warner cinemas are better than Universal's... it's easy to remember where did you see a film, specially back in the day, but who remember the Studio producing this or that film except for a bunch of cinema freaks)?
"It concerns me that people think they can use the product of my mind for free and against my wishes."
The product of your mind doesn't seem to be so valuable if you can't find the answer yourself. Do Not Make It Public and no one will be able to use it against your wishes. There.
"Don't the rights of those who create the content matter?"
Of course they matter. You have the right to make it public or not make it public. Your choice.
And then, you will ask, how am I going to earn a live out of the product of my mind if I don't make it public? That, of course, would show again the product of your mind not being so valuable but, anyway, I'll help you. Hint: don't make it public unless somebody, per contract, agrees to give you a reasonably enough amount of money for the products of your mind. Then pass the products of your mind to him without worry. Hey! now that I think of it, that's what do everybody else! They don't give nothing unless a price is previously agreed. How cute of them!
"how do the people who produce anything creative pay the bills?"
They are creative, aren't they? They'll find a way, then.
Certainly J.S. Bach was creative as it demonstrates the fact that he was able to find a way without copyright masters overthere.
"If you manage to invent a device that makes "scrumping" as easy as copying songs, you'll win a Nobel Prize and put an end to poverty and hunger."
Maybe you'd win a Nobel Prize out of first moment surprise but you can bet that once the dust settles tremendous pressure to control it and make it illegal out of thightly controlled channels (those controlled by big corporations, of course).
Too cynical, are you saying? Well, on one hand it *is* already illegal (copyright and patents would disallow your simple "scrumping") and regarding poverty and hunger... if that was a legit goal please explain me why both EU and USA *pay* for *not* producing basic foods like wheat or milk or why such foods are destroyed to control overproduction instead of sending it to starving countries (no; it is not to control prices: you can't control prices not giving milk for free to Ethiopia since they are not going to buy it at any price).
"without copyrights, there would never had been either Casablanca nor the Beatles."
And that you know... exactly how?
Without copyrights there is Illiad, Oddissey, Eneid and all ancient literature. Theater never needed copyright to work out, nor novels by chapters like those of Dumas.
Films during the 30's, 40's, 50's... still needed complex infrastructures in place for delivering and show so I don't see why couldn't Warner produce Casablanca in order to show it on Warner's cinemas all over the country and protect the reels not by copyright but by simple physical means: no other cinema could get a decent copy of Casablanca unless they bougth to Warner or steal (which is punible by itself) from it.
And what about the Beatles? Do they need any copyright to protect their ability to play their songs in concerts? Certainly others could play their songs but others are *not* The Beatles (The Real Thing TM). And certainly it was not copyright what gave us Bach, Vivaldi or Mozart.
The world being the way it is doesn't mean that's the only way the world could be.
" For people who supposedly pride themselves rational thought, have you ever taken a step back to look at your own views?"
Yes.
"And how do they get paid if anyone can replicate their content for free?"
By-Some-Other-Means.
Yes: it's as simply as that. It is on the side of the one that want to make some money the burden of finding the ways of it, nobody else's.
But if you want some examples, Michelangello produced some nice forms of art. How? By finding someone wanting to pay him for that. But, hey, maybe you don't think that example to be representative since Michelangello didn't produce music. So be it. J.S. Bach, maybe you heard about him, made a live out of composing and playing music. How was that possible? Well, by finding someone wanting to pay him for that. What would have happened if nobody wanted to pay Bach? He simply would have find another way to earn for a living. If distributing media is a bussiness no more, just find a different bussiness.
As simply as that. Really.
"You really think that the "freedom" to steal an author's or musician's work is the same as the freedom to criticize government policies?
You're acting like a child."
Crab mentality... Humm, I think I like that concept.
"Yes, but for bridges and highways there is a lower limit based upon public safety and maintenance costs."
Regarding "maintenance costs", they are there within the "cheaper" part, since usually maintenance gets out the same pockets than forefront costs (if not, wait for cheaper bridges even with higher maintenance costs if possible).
Regarding "public safety" there's not such a thing. There are "regulations in place I should adhere if I want to avoid really big problems". Bridges or highways still go to the lowest bidder.
I think a lesson can be extracted from there.
"Run Linux. That's the answer."
Yes. And you can even go beyond that. If their answer to your "I run Linux" is "but... run Windows then", you could use the everloved windozer answer: Hey, I'm here to learn [whatever], not to waste my time with learning computers, so I use Linux and don't want to waste my time learning Windows. Even if it doesn't work you will have some fun time doing it (unless you are there to learn IT, of course).
"Not to be trite but there are only so many ways to build a bridge."
In fact, there are only two: either the bridge stands under its real load or it falls.
Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about.
"I'm certain that it is, the problem is not software developers, the problem is the complexity and cost of engineering."
Can you really talk on a straight face about "engineering" without considering "complexity and cost"?
"given an infinite budget"
Given an infinite budget you are lightyears away from anything resembling "engineering" to start with.
"and the right people"
Again, if you need for your project to name your people by name and surname instead of qualifications you are lightyears away from anything resembling "engineering".
"The real problem with most software development ("engineerng") is time and budget"
As in building bridges the problem is *not* time and budget? Next time someone wants to build a mile-wide bridge I'll offer building it myself only... with a teaspoon -for a trillion.
It's not only that most software so selfcalled "engineers" seem not to have been exposed to anything resembling "engineering" but that haven't been exposed to nothing remotely resembling "common sense" either.
Cheaper, faster, easier is the motto of most programs written today.
It's the motto for bridges or highways too, so your point was, again?
"Unlike "Software Engineering", a "real" engineer might just actually consider whether the material could stand up under the expected strain. Plus at least 10%. No just "good enough"."
If a "real engineer" doesn't understand what "good enough" means within context what you have is a "real..ly shitty engineer". Might be your case.