"So it is about using someone else's work as your own, rather than producing your own work?"
See the article's distinction between attribution and use. He addresses exactly this fallacy.
"So instead of publishing a text book under creative commons, let's just copy the current ones without the publisher's permission (leech). I agree textbooks are too expensive, but I blame the schools just as much as the publishers."
No! You're missing my point. I'm saying that this would be the case in a country where copyright laws had been completely abolished. With no copyright, there is no need to ask for permission because no one holds the exclusive right to distribute the work -- it's in the public domain and anyone can use it for any purpose. In our current situation, where we do have copyright laws, one does need to ask permission before copying and distributing a copyrighted work for it to be legal.
"So your saying that with copyrights, you live in fear that after leeching music files from friends that you may get caught and sued? Maybe you should listen to independent artists that distribute their songs for free."
I absolutely agree with your stance of listening to artists that don't claim to be represented by the RIAA. However, most of the artists that I listen to, unfortunately, are. But my point is not about what is the case, but what COULD and SHOULD be the case. What seems more productive to you -- a society where anyone can share any art with anyone else, or a society in which certain sharing is disallowed because a gatekeeper wants to skim some revenue off the top and sue those that don't comply, thus hampering the distribution of art amongst and within the society? The RIAA and the labels they represent are no longer necessary in an Internet-enabled society. An artist can publish and distribute his work for near nothing... why do we still have the label middlemen? Support of copyright is hindering this transition.
"So you are saying photographers should work for free, and you should be allowed to leech their work?"
Well, yes. This is the logical conclusion for photographers. You're really hung up on the word "leech" and it's framing the way you think about these things. Try and see things from a different perspective.
"What freedoms? Being able to devalue someone else's sweat equity? hmmm.. "
Freedoms such as the freedom to reuse an artist's original work in your own work. And I have yet to see a case in which the use/distribution of art somehow "devalues" that art... can you provide one to support your assertion? Withholds copyright revenues, sure. But that's what we're assuming isn't the case here. If you're talking about some kind of classic supply and demand model, this really doesn't apply because there is infinite supply. There is no scarcity on the Internet. If I copy your file (say, a music file) that you are sharing with me over kazaa or whatever, that doesn't devalue your copy of the work at all. In fact, because of the network effects, it might even increase its value to you because now you have someone to talk about the artistic work, among other things.
"Honestly, I think you were trying to provide a counter-point to my parent comment but all I see is things that I've already said. You took offense to me using the word "Leftist Bullshit" but you haven't told why the leftist position is more than anarchy and looting of other peoples work. Maybe some are just to transfixed about sharing files, they just don't care about the wishes of the creator of the file. Sounds pretty selfish to me."
I guess it is anarchy, in a way. Let me provide a contrast for you. When I steal your car, you are no longer able to enjoy it. When I "steal" your music file, we can both enjoy it. It's information, perfectly copied in a transaction that you consented to (as opposed to the car, which I took rather rudely). As for the wishes of the author, what kind of artist produces work only
"If you don't compensate the rights holder in some way, you remove a major incentive for the artist to produce work, and you pretty much wipe out the professional artist since all but a handful of independently wealthy artists would need a job to pay the bills which is unrelated to their art."
Following that logic, no artists existed before the creation of copyright. However, we know that that just isn't true. Musicians and actors derive their main source of revenue from performance, with the exception of megastars like Britney Spears. It all comes down to a fundamental choice we have to make as a society... who would we rather see flourish -- Britney Spears, or many artists that could prosper in a post-copyright society for the same (perhaps even less) amount of monetary input?
"The open-source movement is predicated on the mainstream general-purpose computer."
I grant that a lot of open-source development, if not the majority, happens on and for general purpose computers. However, there are more platforms than just that. Tivo and the new Linux-based Nokia to name a couple (yes, I know that both of these are based on linux and therefore indebted to the general-purpose computer open-source movement). The point remains -- open-source goes beyond a specific platform. I guess I'm just much more optimistic about the drive/motivation/creativity/originality of people to hack whatever the situation than you.
The other responser's point is right on. I would like to add... why do you think this new world would be so horrible? Do you like paying for textbooks (keeping in mind that studies have shown that wikipedia has more accurate entries than encyclopedia britannica)? Do you like paying for music? Do you like living under constant fear of "rights management" organizations like the MPAA and RIAA? I don't know where you get the case-by-case idea... I've never heard of that before and I don't see where that comes into play at all. There would be nothing to negotiate if there were no copyrights to begin with.
No, what we need is a system that (my numbers try and address your numbers' points, respectively):
1) Doesn't compensate any rights holder. This is the only thing that makes sense in a society connected to the internet, where distribution of information such as creative works is global, perfect, and instantaneous. Otherwise, we get a cumbersome system of "rights management" -- RIAA, MPAA, HFA, etc.
2) Provides attribution for work. (see the author of the second article's distinction on attribution vs. control)
3) There is no punishment for distribution. To the contrary, distribution of art should be a net gain for society and should be encouraged.
Yes, some would lose out. MPAA executives and copyright lawyers would be out of jobs. I don't feel too sorry for them, though. All musicians except the megastars, however, make most if not all of their money off performance, anyway. Problem solved... abolish copyright!
First of all, it would be nice if you actually understood the position of copyright abolitionists before you attacked it. It's not "leftist bullshit" and it's not based on the "NO HARM NO FOUL" principle. Copyright is not about the GPL or any other free software license. It's about what others can and can not do with creative works. Now, with copyright, you need to ask the permission of the copyright holder if you want to distribute their work, make money from it, use it in a work of your own, sometimes just even use it. In a society without copyright, this would all change. Imagine 1) never having to pay for a school textbook anymore 2) never being in fear because you feel the RIAA might come a knocking at your door 3) using whatever picture you had access to for whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted 4) various other freedoms that would not be possible under a copyrighted society.
"As with a lot of "there is no such thing as property" groups, QuestionCopyright.org* seems to not understand the purpose of copyright."
Three strikes. First, I guarantee the author of the original article knows more about copyright than you. If you don't believe me, read this: http://questioncopyright.org/node/1 Second, this is not a "there is no such thing as property" post. This is not a communist rant, rather one that seeks to point out that copyright is not some divine right but a privilege granted by society. Third, you're not seeing the big picture. Forget about GPL/BSD/etc for a minute and broaden your scope a little. This isn't about the problems that the open-source community faces, but a larger societal problem. Copyright is an institution that touches many, many aspects of today's life, especially online.
As one of the other responders points out, this is a really bad example... it's already done.
Not to mention this is the world we live in now. If you don't put up your art for others to use, other artists will use something (CC-licensed or public domain or whatever) that they can use. Your art will be left in the dust, as far as people seeing it and appreciating it and building new works upon it goes. If you just want to spend all day taking pictures and admiring your own work by yourself in the privacy of your own home, then shoot away. Just don't be disappointed when you wake up and realize the internet is here, which allows and encourages the kind of distribution that you fear (without giving you licensing fees).
"Kfogel misses the point that without copyright the computer industry would have grown an entirely different direction from way back in the '70s. Without specific protection for the software component, companies would have tied software to the hardware. Think: dedicated Pac Man machines in the arcades. You can copy the Microsoft Office ROMS all you want, but it uses the registers and I/O devices only present on the patented Microsoft Office machine. No *general purpose* computers... Copyright is what made the general purpose computer sociologically possible. That world, by the way, would suck."
So the entire open-source movement, and indeed the desire to tinker/hack/explore/create/whatever, is predicated on copyright? Please, you know that's not the case. I'm sure there would have been a slightly different route to take to get us to the point we are today.
It's not pointless. A) We could live in a world without copyright. Copyright, with the instantaneous, global, perfect distribution of information that the Internet provides, has become unenforceable. What makes you think that current trends of violating copyright will not continue and the content owners will throw in the towel (or, more likely, the government forces them to because it sees they are a bane on society and the file-sharing majority is against them)? B) Even if that world is not here, or far off, it's still useful as a thought exercise, with the possibility that this world might arise.
Despite what some on this thread might have you think, abolishing copyright really does make a lot of sense... I am not alone when I say that society would be better off today without it... see this essay: http://www.questioncopyright.org/node/1
(Replying to own post) My only guess is that it's this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9ovvw2iSyA
Judging by the 1) popularity 2) nature of the video 3) fact that it has a one-star rating, a low I have never seen reached (must have been pissing off a lot of people, like, oh I dunno, an entire nation of devoted followers) 4) It's a response to this video (flagged by youtube community) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCAynSF5i0s which has a lot of "gay" "homosexual" references and swastikas...
Unfortunately I don't know my Turkish well enough to translate the title, and there doesn't seem to be any online Turkish translation tools...
Or, even better, donate lots of money to the EFF. Maybe around $500 million dollars to counter the effects of the money that's going to be potentially paid to the ISPs... where's Bill Gates when you need him?
If anyone reads DVDJon's blog, he has an excellent point: if DRM was ever about helping the music labels, the RIAA's strategy failed miserably: now Apple wants it because it locks people into their services: http://nanocrew.net/2007/02/06/steves-thoughts-on- music/ Now Apple gets to play the good guy by releasing us from the control of the evil labels even though they have been supporters of it all along!
When I think about sucessful convergence of a web and a desktop app, I think Amarok. It's in the same vein as iTunes in that it utilizes an app on the desktop to connect to relevant web content: lyrics, wikipedia, and more. And it's free (as in freedom).
Here's something that's very relevant: http://www.questioncopyright.org/ Copyright was created to protect distributors, not artists. Copyright has never "protected the artist." It just keeps lame-duck businesses afloat. The RIAA doesn't care if it wins or loses its lawsuits... it only cares about keeping this mentality alive.
Slashdot Mirror
"So it is about using someone else's work as your own, rather than producing your own work?"
See the article's distinction between attribution and use. He addresses exactly this fallacy.
"So instead of publishing a text book under creative commons, let's just copy the current ones without the publisher's permission (leech). I agree textbooks are too expensive, but I blame the schools just as much as the publishers."
No! You're missing my point. I'm saying that this would be the case in a country where copyright laws had been completely abolished. With no copyright, there is no need to ask for permission because no one holds the exclusive right to distribute the work -- it's in the public domain and anyone can use it for any purpose. In our current situation, where we do have copyright laws, one does need to ask permission before copying and distributing a copyrighted work for it to be legal.
"So your saying that with copyrights, you live in fear that after leeching music files from friends that you may get caught and sued? Maybe you should listen to independent artists that distribute their songs for free."
I absolutely agree with your stance of listening to artists that don't claim to be represented by the RIAA. However, most of the artists that I listen to, unfortunately, are. But my point is not about what is the case, but what COULD and SHOULD be the case. What seems more productive to you -- a society where anyone can share any art with anyone else, or a society in which certain sharing is disallowed because a gatekeeper wants to skim some revenue off the top and sue those that don't comply, thus hampering the distribution of art amongst and within the society? The RIAA and the labels they represent are no longer necessary in an Internet-enabled society. An artist can publish and distribute his work for near nothing... why do we still have the label middlemen? Support of copyright is hindering this transition.
"So you are saying photographers should work for free, and you should be allowed to leech their work?"
Well, yes. This is the logical conclusion for photographers. You're really hung up on the word "leech" and it's framing the way you think about these things. Try and see things from a different perspective.
"What freedoms? Being able to devalue someone else's sweat equity? hmmm.. "
Freedoms such as the freedom to reuse an artist's original work in your own work. And I have yet to see a case in which the use/distribution of art somehow "devalues" that art... can you provide one to support your assertion? Withholds copyright revenues, sure. But that's what we're assuming isn't the case here. If you're talking about some kind of classic supply and demand model, this really doesn't apply because there is infinite supply. There is no scarcity on the Internet. If I copy your file (say, a music file) that you are sharing with me over kazaa or whatever, that doesn't devalue your copy of the work at all. In fact, because of the network effects, it might even increase its value to you because now you have someone to talk about the artistic work, among other things.
"Honestly, I think you were trying to provide a counter-point to my parent comment but all I see is things that I've already said. You took offense to me using the word "Leftist Bullshit" but you haven't told why the leftist position is more than anarchy and looting of other peoples work. Maybe some are just to transfixed about sharing files, they just don't care about the wishes of the creator of the file. Sounds pretty selfish to me."
I guess it is anarchy, in a way. Let me provide a contrast for you. When I steal your car, you are no longer able to enjoy it. When I "steal" your music file, we can both enjoy it. It's information, perfectly copied in a transaction that you consented to (as opposed to the car, which I took rather rudely). As for the wishes of the author, what kind of artist produces work only
Incredible! You can distribute books in PDF (or your format of choice) on the Internet???
Yes, ink, glue, bindings and shipping are non-information goods and thus must be paid for. Why do you need it printed out?
"If you don't compensate the rights holder in some way, you remove a major incentive for the artist to produce work, and you pretty much wipe out the professional artist since all but a handful of independently wealthy artists would need a job to pay the bills which is unrelated to their art."
Following that logic, no artists existed before the creation of copyright. However, we know that that just isn't true. Musicians and actors derive their main source of revenue from performance, with the exception of megastars like Britney Spears. It all comes down to a fundamental choice we have to make as a society... who would we rather see flourish -- Britney Spears, or many artists that could prosper in a post-copyright society for the same (perhaps even less) amount of monetary input?
"The open-source movement is predicated on the mainstream general-purpose computer."
I grant that a lot of open-source development, if not the majority, happens on and for general purpose computers. However, there are more platforms than just that. Tivo and the new Linux-based Nokia to name a couple (yes, I know that both of these are based on linux and therefore indebted to the general-purpose computer open-source movement). The point remains -- open-source goes beyond a specific platform. I guess I'm just much more optimistic about the drive/motivation/creativity/originality of people to hack whatever the situation than you.
The other responser's point is right on. I would like to add... why do you think this new world would be so horrible? Do you like paying for textbooks (keeping in mind that studies have shown that wikipedia has more accurate entries than encyclopedia britannica)? Do you like paying for music? Do you like living under constant fear of "rights management" organizations like the MPAA and RIAA? I don't know where you get the case-by-case idea... I've never heard of that before and I don't see where that comes into play at all. There would be nothing to negotiate if there were no copyrights to begin with.
No, what we need is a system that (my numbers try and address your numbers' points, respectively): 1) Doesn't compensate any rights holder. This is the only thing that makes sense in a society connected to the internet, where distribution of information such as creative works is global, perfect, and instantaneous. Otherwise, we get a cumbersome system of "rights management" -- RIAA, MPAA, HFA, etc. 2) Provides attribution for work. (see the author of the second article's distinction on attribution vs. control) 3) There is no punishment for distribution. To the contrary, distribution of art should be a net gain for society and should be encouraged. Yes, some would lose out. MPAA executives and copyright lawyers would be out of jobs. I don't feel too sorry for them, though. All musicians except the megastars, however, make most if not all of their money off performance, anyway. Problem solved... abolish copyright!
Someone? How about the article's author: http://questioncopyright.org/node/1
First of all, it would be nice if you actually understood the position of copyright abolitionists before you attacked it. It's not "leftist bullshit" and it's not based on the "NO HARM NO FOUL" principle. Copyright is not about the GPL or any other free software license. It's about what others can and can not do with creative works. Now, with copyright, you need to ask the permission of the copyright holder if you want to distribute their work, make money from it, use it in a work of your own, sometimes just even use it. In a society without copyright, this would all change. Imagine 1) never having to pay for a school textbook anymore 2) never being in fear because you feel the RIAA might come a knocking at your door 3) using whatever picture you had access to for whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted 4) various other freedoms that would not be possible under a copyrighted society.
"As with a lot of "there is no such thing as property" groups, QuestionCopyright.org* seems to not understand the purpose of copyright." Three strikes. First, I guarantee the author of the original article knows more about copyright than you. If you don't believe me, read this: http://questioncopyright.org/node/1 Second, this is not a "there is no such thing as property" post. This is not a communist rant, rather one that seeks to point out that copyright is not some divine right but a privilege granted by society. Third, you're not seeing the big picture. Forget about GPL/BSD/etc for a minute and broaden your scope a little. This isn't about the problems that the open-source community faces, but a larger societal problem. Copyright is an institution that touches many, many aspects of today's life, especially online.
As one of the other responders points out, this is a really bad example... it's already done. Not to mention this is the world we live in now. If you don't put up your art for others to use, other artists will use something (CC-licensed or public domain or whatever) that they can use. Your art will be left in the dust, as far as people seeing it and appreciating it and building new works upon it goes. If you just want to spend all day taking pictures and admiring your own work by yourself in the privacy of your own home, then shoot away. Just don't be disappointed when you wake up and realize the internet is here, which allows and encourages the kind of distribution that you fear (without giving you licensing fees).
"Kfogel misses the point that without copyright the computer industry would have grown an entirely different direction from way back in the '70s. Without specific protection for the software component, companies would have tied software to the hardware. Think: dedicated Pac Man machines in the arcades. You can copy the Microsoft Office ROMS all you want, but it uses the registers and I/O devices only present on the patented Microsoft Office machine. No *general purpose* computers... Copyright is what made the general purpose computer sociologically possible. That world, by the way, would suck." So the entire open-source movement, and indeed the desire to tinker/hack/explore/create/whatever, is predicated on copyright? Please, you know that's not the case. I'm sure there would have been a slightly different route to take to get us to the point we are today.
It's not pointless. A) We could live in a world without copyright. Copyright, with the instantaneous, global, perfect distribution of information that the Internet provides, has become unenforceable. What makes you think that current trends of violating copyright will not continue and the content owners will throw in the towel (or, more likely, the government forces them to because it sees they are a bane on society and the file-sharing majority is against them)? B) Even if that world is not here, or far off, it's still useful as a thought exercise, with the possibility that this world might arise.
Despite what some on this thread might have you think, abolishing copyright really does make a lot of sense... I am not alone when I say that society would be better off today without it... see this essay: http://www.questioncopyright.org/node/1
"freedom is withdrawn" ... interesting euphemism...
AMEN! Evolve or die!
Um, instead of ignorantly debating this with IANAL's, consult what the expert has to say: http://www.lessig.org/blog/
DevelopMassivelyPrivacyInfringingSoftware(); while(1) { while(PublicDoesntKnowAboutIt()) { UseIt(); } ChangeItsName(); // haha, suckers!
}
(Replying to own post) My only guess is that it's this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9ovvw2iSyA Judging by the 1) popularity 2) nature of the video 3) fact that it has a one-star rating, a low I have never seen reached (must have been pissing off a lot of people, like, oh I dunno, an entire nation of devoted followers) 4) It's a response to this video (flagged by youtube community) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCAynSF5i0s which has a lot of "gay" "homosexual" references and swastikas... Unfortunately I don't know my Turkish well enough to translate the title, and there doesn't seem to be any online Turkish translation tools...
Um, how about a link to this alleged controversial video? Would be nice to know what the hubbub is all about...
Or, even better, donate lots of money to the EFF. Maybe around $500 million dollars to counter the effects of the money that's going to be potentially paid to the ISPs... where's Bill Gates when you need him?
"significant governmental intervention" ... like, say, the DMCA?
If anyone reads DVDJon's blog, he has an excellent point: if DRM was ever about helping the music labels, the RIAA's strategy failed miserably: now Apple wants it because it locks people into their services: http://nanocrew.net/2007/02/06/steves-thoughts-on- music/ Now Apple gets to play the good guy by releasing us from the control of the evil labels even though they have been supporters of it all along!
When I think about sucessful convergence of a web and a desktop app, I think Amarok. It's in the same vein as iTunes in that it utilizes an app on the desktop to connect to relevant web content: lyrics, wikipedia, and more. And it's free (as in freedom).
http://www.questioncopyright.org/node/1
Here's something that's very relevant: http://www.questioncopyright.org/ Copyright was created to protect distributors, not artists. Copyright has never "protected the artist." It just keeps lame-duck businesses afloat. The RIAA doesn't care if it wins or loses its lawsuits... it only cares about keeping this mentality alive.