Haha okay, we'll run with your change to the definition. 'Low sales' is not a self-fulfilling prophecy then. Afterall, it only happens because people decide not to buy.:)
Ha! I'll pay that.:-)
I'm curious though: what is your definition of a self-fulfilling prophecy? I just simply assumed it was a prophecy that fulfilled itself, but clearly you know more on the subject.
This is a fun little word game and all, but what are you really after?
Well, I more or less told you what I was after in my first post:
Calling it a self-fulfilling prophecy just serves to make pirates feel less bad about their selfish behaviour.
Basically, I wanted you not to call it a self-fulfilling prophecy, to stop giving validation to people who choose to pirate. I thought you had that message by now, so now it's just a fun a little word game.
Ah, now we have a new mutation of the term that now requires that the prophecy must be morally correct. Heh.
No, we have the vanilla term, which requires the prophecy to fulfil itself. If people have to decide to make the prophecy fulfilled, it's not self-fulfilling. It's the regular, manual-fulfilling prophecy.
Go look up the problems people are having with DRM.
I know many of the worse problems that various DRM problems have caused. I do read/., anti-DRM central, after all. Plus, I've encountered my own problems with DRMed media.
When it gets in the way of playing the game, then yes, they may have to pirate it.
This is the attitude I was referring to. The existence of DRM does not mandate piracy. If DRM gets in the way of playing a game, that's bad, but that doesn't mean they have to pirate. They have other options, including demanding their money back, filing a class action suit, or, for the lazy, just vowing never to be burned by the same company again. There's nothing that says they need to download a different copy.
A self-fulfilling prophecy would imply that customers would have no choice but to turn to piracy....
Not really.
Yes, really! An artist/publisher's decision to place an anti-piracy scheme on their work, no matter how annoying, does not imply that people must pirate it. Even if it were theoretically possible to legitimately buy and use the work, people still have the option of not buying and not pirating.
Low sales is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Piracy is not. Piracy is a person's decision. There is no situation where piracy is an option, and where "not buying" isn't an option.
Grr. It's not a self-fulfilling prophecy. A self-fulfilling prophecy would imply that customers would have no choice but to turn to piracy, when there's always the choice to buy or boycott. Calling it a self-fulfilling prophecy just serves to make pirates feel less bad about their selfish behaviour.
Shit man, if we're not careful people may even have to start paying attention when dealing with potentially dangerous situations. That'd be a real bummer, as it would waste a little precious time that could be spent on texting, music, and games. Thank God people have their priorities straight!
And while they don't learn? Then their behaviour endangers more than themselves; it endangers everyone around them. These are how pile-ups happen.
It's also a great thing that laws could be made to sort this out. That would work like a charm, of course. It's only natural that people don't care if poor decision-making gets them killed, but they'll wise up really quick when it might get them fined.
Your argument doesn't work, simply because a fine is a much more common and immediate threat than death by a preventable accident. It's just like with running a red light. There's the threat of damage, injury, or even death, but the fact that a policeman may see them is often the primary deterrent in borderline cases.
Quote: "Wait, so your disproof of copyright's benefits is that one group of people might try to use it to control our thoughts?"
Read the other bits.
Done. His paranoid ramblings will be struck from the record.
Quote: "Most of history's greatest works were created on commission"
Clearly copyright wasn't needed for those great works.
Clearly. If you think about it, the commission business model of yesteryear is analogous to the sign-with-a-record-label business model of today. In both, a rich party buys the work in advance, encouraging the artist to work. The difference is, of course, that the commissioner of yesteryear kept his works to himself for their prestige, and his own benefit. The record labels actually distribute our culture back to the masses.
But, I digress. My point was that the OP claim that there is plenty of evidence that artists work without money is a load of bullshit, and that point still stands.
And assuming you are correct, most is not all, thus it shows that creators will create stuff whether or not they are paid for it.
No, it doesn't. I have absolutely no idea where you pulled that from. It shows that the greatest works of history happened for pay. That is everything that it shows.
Thing is, if creators are busy doing work for others, naturally most of the works would be created on commission, because they have less spare time to do personal projects.
BUT even if nobody is buying, during that spare time, a great painter will still paint, a great composer will still compose, a great poet will still write. Because it is part of them, part of their lives almost like eating and sleeping. As long as they are fit enough to do so, and there isn't anything getting in the way. So if they and their family's needs are taken care of, they'll have more time to create.
This is unmitigated, unsubstantiated crap. All the great works would have happened anyway? What utter nonsense! Artists do have a tendency to create, but their greatest works were almost always through commission! That's a pretty unsubtle indication that pay is needed to create the great works. There's also a perfectly rational explanation for the phenomenon: artists need support and incentive to focus on perfecting their greatest works. To say this would have happened without money is just pure crap.
Nowadays practically everything is under copyright once you create it, so that statement proves nothing.
To the contrary; it proves much. It would prove nothing if it were impossible to create without copyright. The fact that practically everything is created under copyright is, in fact, my point. If the great works could be created without copyright, then why haven't more great works been created without copyright?
In fact for works of art in particular, the artists often still get the bulk of the $$$ for the original, and little for the copies. Hardly anyone will pay them lots of money for subsequent copies of the same work. So even if their originals are copied (but attribution kept) they hardly lose out - in fact they may become more famous and so can charge more.
So, what you're saying is that we should revert back to the commission system? Well then, do it! Nobody is stopping you! Talk to an artist you enjoy who isn't signed with a label, and talk to them about a commissioned work. Set up a contract, saying you'll pay a certain amount until the project is done, and in exchange, he will give you the copyright (for you to invalidate at your leisure). You may have to haggle with him for a good price, but since he lives and breathes art, you should be able to get it at a steal.
So, enjoy your little commissioned utopia. Just don't mandate it for everyone, OK? If we wanted to commission artworks, and if we could afford it, we
What does help the causation part is that the people who created copyright law also predicted exactly how it would help, and the justification made perfect sense. In most (all?) cases in our history, extra money into a market stimulates extra growth. There is evidence from analogous situations throughout history that this approach works, and copyright does it beautifully.
That's too weak? You want more evidence? Would you prefer an experiment, happening right now, demonstrating the effectiveness of copyright? Anyone can release their works without copyright. All they have to do is mention, somewhere, that the work is not to be copyrighted. All artists have the option to release in this way, or to release under copyright. Most artists choose the latter. Of those that choose the former, they often remain nobodies relative to their commercial counterparts. They may be good, but being good is irrelevant if nobody gets to experience their work.
Also, given the choice between copyrighted and non-copyrighted (or copylefted) works, you would expect, if the quality was comparable between the two groups, people to download the free and legal alternative. But they don't. Clearly there is something that many, many people want in copyrighted works.
Wouldn't a larger influx of artistic works happens anyway because of other reasons (e.g. increased surplus income for consumers, better and cheaper technology for playing, recording & distribution, etc.)?
Well, when the printing press came out, before copyright, publishers complained about how easy it was for people to publish their books that they paid to create and distribute, without any legal repercussions. They complained, because it was a documented problem. People were copying books and selling them for much cheaper prices than the publisher who paid for it could afford. The technology back then was making it easier and cheaper to create books, but rather than encouraging new people into the game, all it did was drive prices to an unreasonable low.
I have no longer have any doubt whatsoever that the vast, vast majority of the boon to artistry came from the fact that people could make a living from artistry, and that this was due to copyright.
Moreover, couldn't the influx be larger still if we didn't have copyright by reducing restrictions?
Copyright is only restrictive if you're wanting to make a work out of other people's works, and even then, you can do that with permission. Now, I admit that we may lose some artistic sampling here and there, but given how well copyright is working in boosting every single other facet of art, I don't think we're getting the raw deal. Sometimes, you just can't have everything you want at once.
You can always sample non-copyrighted works though! If you want to build a more sample-friendly culture, why don't you start producing your own non-copyrighted works to sample from? I'm sure you'll have no trouble succeeding!
My very next statement was actually part of the background for the point I was actually making, which was at the end of my post (did you actually read that far?).
why people get quite so angry when the record companies insult our intelligence with this sort of BS.
I did read that far, but I saw no relevance to the point I was making. It doesn't matter how angry you are at record labels, it's still the artist's choice whether or not sign with them.
This statement seems to be as naive as a lot of the artists are that sign these contracts.
I know you go on further to justify why you think this statement is naive, but this statement, in itself, is kinda funny. I'm trying to prove that contracts must have some kind of benefits to artists, and I come up with a valid modus tollens argument to prove it. Accordingly, you attack my premises, on the basis that my conclusion is false. I find that funny, since my conclusion being false is exactly what you're trying to prove, so the argument is circular. But, I'll shut up now and let you properly justify your statement.
You appear to come from a world where, before joining a band, artists will have already obtained years of experience in contract law, or have amassed the funds to pay for a lawyer with such experience.
Unlike in the movies, contracts are not readable only by lawyers, and loopholes are not so common. I have read plenty of contracts, and found them understandable. Also, if you ask the person who has given you the contract, they must provide you with a complete understanding of what the contract entails, otherwise the contract will not be valid (I talked to a law student on this point). Both parties must be completely aware of both their responsibilities under a contract.
In the world I live in, on one side there are artists who are often quite young but have a talent for creating music and on the other side, are experienced professionals who are very talented at dealing with such artists and getting the best deal possible. In my world, the professionals are paid by record companies and so, irrespective of what they may tell the artists, that is where their loyalties lie.
Of course they tell the artists that the contract will bring money and other benefits, as otherwise, as you point out, the artist is less likely to sign. What they keep hidden, is that the money and benefits will be mainly going to the record company.
Now if the record companies were completely honest about this and explained to everyone, including the media and politicians that they lobby for ever more lucrative laws to be passed, then I for one would have far less of a problem. But while they continue to churn out the same old BS year in and year out and expect that I am stupid enough to fall for it, then I will continue to be pissed off by them and those that seem to fall for their spin.
In my world, if most music contract provided benefits to anyone, then most signed artists would be speaking out against these contracts. They are, for the most part, a very passionate and vocal bunch. But this isn't happening, barring a few stragglers with (seemingly) bad contracts, so, again by modus tollens, there must be a fair few contracts which are doing the artists a service.
Anyway, we are blowing out of proportion a single point I was making towards a greater point, that is, there is no evidence that copyright is superfluous, while there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Clearly, you are angry at the record labels. That is your business, and I won't lie, they've given us plenty to hate them for. However, I reject the notion that this implies we should destroy copyright (that makes it my business), especially when the problem could be solved by artists doing themselves a favour by reading what they're signing. There are also plenty of other ways of reforming them, other than destroying 90% (a generous figure) of our artistic production. That's really the point I was trying to make.
To some extent. On the other hand, most people can tell the difference between a "regular" movie, and a "3D" movie/game. Regardless of whether or not you say a "regular" movie is in 3D, there is some distinction somewhere in the brain, and thus there is room for preference.
I doubt it, since your very next statement completely glosses over the issue.
Often once the artist (who is neither an experienced contract lawyer nor someone who has access to, or the money to pay for such expertise), has signed an extremely one-sided contract with the record company (that has both the access and the money) a copyright no longer belongs to the artist.
Once $BAD_THING happens, $BAD_THING will happen. If we take for granted that $BAD_THING will happen, then I agree that $BAD_THING will happen. You just need to show me why $BAD_THING must necessarily happen, and you're all set!
Why must artists sign with a record label? If it makes them no money (or more precisely, gives them no benefits), then they will not sign. Period. Those that do only have themselves to blame for their stupid decision.
The music industry suffers from the broken window fallacy. Roughly, the kid who broke a window benefited society since money flowed because the window had to be replaced. The fallacy is that the money would have flowed anyway, but NOT in the replacement of something but in investment or the improving of ones life.
WTF? How is investing in and releasing a piece of music akin to "breaking a window"? I suppose that investing in culture is not an investment, and that providing entertainment doesn't improve enough on people's lives.
Only for a very short period have creators in general really been making money their copyrighted work. Copyrights have mostly just benefited the distributors and the monopolists, not the actual creators.
Just look at how much most musicians get from their labels after those infamous accounting methods (similar to Hollywood accounting). In the past distribution and marketing was expensive, so perhaps some of it was justified, but nowadays with technology distribution of music is cheap (and marketing just needs someone clever to make it "viral"). The distributors now provide very little value add to the creators and are more parasites than symbiotes.
I think you misunderstand. A copyright belongs to the artist, to be used however they wish. If artists are having trouble with their labels, it is between them and the label, no-one else. They don't need pirates telling them what is best for them, or stripping of their copyrights over some nanny-state paternalistic bullcrap. If they don't want to be signed, they won't sign.
Conversely, if they are signed, it means they wanted to be signed (or perhaps are indifferent either way). Maybe the figures floating around the internet don't tell us the whole story? A lot of people want the labels to fail, so a misinformation campaign wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
So nowadays the main benefit copyright provides to a creator is you don't have to compete against your old stuff as much.
Um, no, the main benefit of copyright is so creators don't have to compete against free versions of all their works, their newer ones included. Seriously, read a book or something.
Supposedly copyright is so that people would be creating more works. But you can see for yourself, great musicians, artists, programmers, etc will create stuff whether or not they are paid for it.
Where? Most of history's greatest works were created on commission, and most of the great modern works were created under copyright. I'm seeing, frankly, no evidence to support that claim.
Perhaps you're referring to the allure of stardom? Well, I hate to break it to you, but stardom comes from a rich culture (with rich people providing such culture), which comes from copyright. If you remove copyright, that too will fade. Quickly.
Copyrights won't scale well and would put a greater cost on us when we have artificial memories and virtual telepathy. This is not far off given that neural interfaces are improving. We are already in the prelim stage with smartphones and other tech. Monopolists will try to charge us more than a penny for "their" thoughts, whenever we try to recall or share something. They will try to DRM our brain and body augmenters, but for what benefit and whose benefit? You would be paying more for less functionality and freedom.
Wait, so your disproof of copyright's benefits is that one group of people might try to use it to control our thoughts? So, I guess we probably should outlaw P2P, since it might bring down our scientific progress and cultural growth? You're as bad as the **AA.
Compare email vs SMS.
That's a particularly bad example. SMS and email have different benefits and short-falls, and as such, are used in different circumstances.
Is it worth taxing or even crippling more and more people for the benefit of a few? I say no.
I say strawman.
In theory copyright can benefit society, in practice does it? And in the future I claim it will cost society more than it benefits it. Hosts can certainly survive with parasites sucking their blood. But just because they can doesn't mean the parasite is providing a benefit to the host, and doesn't meant things can't be better.
... which is precisely why that isn't the justification for
Copyrights and patents prevent progress in the sciences and the useful arts. They were an experiment that utterly failed.
Let's take stock, shall we? The purpose of copyright was to create and maintain a larger influx of artistic works, and that's exactly what's happened. It takes a pretty big stretch of the imagination to say that copyright failed.
Your capitulation is insufficient... Nothing less than to abolish copyright will do.
Perhaps, but that doesn't mean you have to shoot them through your foot.
I like to think that what I do at my job benefits other people. How can someone work a job where they harass people into giving them money, and nothing they do could possibly help anyone but themselves.
It makes more sense if you approach it from the (legally justified) point of view that the Las Vegas Review-Journal is entitled to some compensation for the infringement of their copyright. Then it just becomes an outsourcing service. Righthaven is suing Angle in lieu of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, and has already compensated Las Vegas Review-Journal before damages (if any) are paid out.
Atheists don't do faith - it's kinda the point. The only people who insist that they do are religious nutters who lack imagination, and thus can't conceive of anyone not being exactly like themselves.
That's false, and I can provide a counterexample. I'm not religious in any sense, but I recognise that it requires a measure of faith* to say, with certainty, that no god exists. It is, in fact, the agnostics who are true sceptics without faith, waiting for evidence for or against the existence of a deity.
* The word "faith" has the wrong connotation here, but it's appropriate enough.
As someone who lives in Australia, I can say that, no, we really aren't heading down that road. Beware of taking slashdot as your news source; you can't believe everything you read.
Oh no! Don't make me post at 0 or -1! I'll do anything! I didn't need this "integrity" thing anyway...
Yes, mein censor! I will toe the party line from now on! I didn't mean to contradict you. From now on, if you say there is evidence, then I will unquestioningly believe you.
That's some funny moderation. The examples just keep pouring in, don't they?
What evidence did the GP have to conclude that money somehow trumped consumer rights? He basically had, "Sony is rich", and "I hate Sony". I'm sceptical that the judge would have admitted those into evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
We foresaw that you might possibly say that, so the system to do so is already in place and in use!
Ha! I'll pay that. :-)
I'm curious though: what is your definition of a self-fulfilling prophecy? I just simply assumed it was a prophecy that fulfilled itself, but clearly you know more on the subject.
Well, I more or less told you what I was after in my first post:
Basically, I wanted you not to call it a self-fulfilling prophecy, to stop giving validation to people who choose to pirate. I thought you had that message by now, so now it's just a fun a little word game.
No, we have the vanilla term, which requires the prophecy to fulfil itself. If people have to decide to make the prophecy fulfilled, it's not self-fulfilling. It's the regular, manual-fulfilling prophecy.
I know many of the worse problems that various DRM problems have caused. I do read /., anti-DRM central, after all. Plus, I've encountered my own problems with DRMed media.
This is the attitude I was referring to. The existence of DRM does not mandate piracy. If DRM gets in the way of playing a game, that's bad, but that doesn't mean they have to pirate. They have other options, including demanding their money back, filing a class action suit, or, for the lazy, just vowing never to be burned by the same company again. There's nothing that says they need to download a different copy.
Yes, really! An artist/publisher's decision to place an anti-piracy scheme on their work, no matter how annoying, does not imply that people must pirate it. Even if it were theoretically possible to legitimately buy and use the work, people still have the option of not buying and not pirating.
Low sales is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Piracy is not. Piracy is a person's decision. There is no situation where piracy is an option, and where "not buying" isn't an option.
Yes!
Grr. It's not a self-fulfilling prophecy. A self-fulfilling prophecy would imply that customers would have no choice but to turn to piracy, when there's always the choice to buy or boycott. Calling it a self-fulfilling prophecy just serves to make pirates feel less bad about their selfish behaviour.
And while they don't learn? Then their behaviour endangers more than themselves; it endangers everyone around them. These are how pile-ups happen.
Your argument doesn't work, simply because a fine is a much more common and immediate threat than death by a preventable accident. It's just like with running a red light. There's the threat of damage, injury, or even death, but the fact that a policeman may see them is often the primary deterrent in borderline cases.
Done. His paranoid ramblings will be struck from the record.
Clearly. If you think about it, the commission business model of yesteryear is analogous to the sign-with-a-record-label business model of today. In both, a rich party buys the work in advance, encouraging the artist to work. The difference is, of course, that the commissioner of yesteryear kept his works to himself for their prestige, and his own benefit. The record labels actually distribute our culture back to the masses.
But, I digress. My point was that the OP claim that there is plenty of evidence that artists work without money is a load of bullshit, and that point still stands.
No, it doesn't. I have absolutely no idea where you pulled that from. It shows that the greatest works of history happened for pay. That is everything that it shows.
This is unmitigated, unsubstantiated crap. All the great works would have happened anyway? What utter nonsense! Artists do have a tendency to create, but their greatest works were almost always through commission! That's a pretty unsubtle indication that pay is needed to create the great works. There's also a perfectly rational explanation for the phenomenon: artists need support and incentive to focus on perfecting their greatest works. To say this would have happened without money is just pure crap.
To the contrary; it proves much. It would prove nothing if it were impossible to create without copyright. The fact that practically everything is created under copyright is, in fact, my point. If the great works could be created without copyright, then why haven't more great works been created without copyright?
So, what you're saying is that we should revert back to the commission system? Well then, do it! Nobody is stopping you! Talk to an artist you enjoy who isn't signed with a label, and talk to them about a commissioned work. Set up a contract, saying you'll pay a certain amount until the project is done, and in exchange, he will give you the copyright (for you to invalidate at your leisure). You may have to haggle with him for a good price, but since he lives and breathes art, you should be able to get it at a steal.
So, enjoy your little commissioned utopia. Just don't mandate it for everyone, OK? If we wanted to commission artworks, and if we could afford it, we
Wow! I did not know that!
What does help the causation part is that the people who created copyright law also predicted exactly how it would help, and the justification made perfect sense. In most (all?) cases in our history, extra money into a market stimulates extra growth. There is evidence from analogous situations throughout history that this approach works, and copyright does it beautifully.
That's too weak? You want more evidence? Would you prefer an experiment, happening right now, demonstrating the effectiveness of copyright? Anyone can release their works without copyright. All they have to do is mention, somewhere, that the work is not to be copyrighted. All artists have the option to release in this way, or to release under copyright. Most artists choose the latter. Of those that choose the former, they often remain nobodies relative to their commercial counterparts. They may be good, but being good is irrelevant if nobody gets to experience their work.
Also, given the choice between copyrighted and non-copyrighted (or copylefted) works, you would expect, if the quality was comparable between the two groups, people to download the free and legal alternative. But they don't. Clearly there is something that many, many people want in copyrighted works.
Well, when the printing press came out, before copyright, publishers complained about how easy it was for people to publish their books that they paid to create and distribute, without any legal repercussions. They complained, because it was a documented problem. People were copying books and selling them for much cheaper prices than the publisher who paid for it could afford. The technology back then was making it easier and cheaper to create books, but rather than encouraging new people into the game, all it did was drive prices to an unreasonable low.
I have no longer have any doubt whatsoever that the vast, vast majority of the boon to artistry came from the fact that people could make a living from artistry, and that this was due to copyright.
Copyright is only restrictive if you're wanting to make a work out of other people's works, and even then, you can do that with permission. Now, I admit that we may lose some artistic sampling here and there, but given how well copyright is working in boosting every single other facet of art, I don't think we're getting the raw deal. Sometimes, you just can't have everything you want at once.
You can always sample non-copyrighted works though! If you want to build a more sample-friendly culture, why don't you start producing your own non-copyrighted works to sample from? I'm sure you'll have no trouble succeeding!
I did read that far, but I saw no relevance to the point I was making. It doesn't matter how angry you are at record labels, it's still the artist's choice whether or not sign with them.
I know you go on further to justify why you think this statement is naive, but this statement, in itself, is kinda funny. I'm trying to prove that contracts must have some kind of benefits to artists, and I come up with a valid modus tollens argument to prove it. Accordingly, you attack my premises, on the basis that my conclusion is false. I find that funny, since my conclusion being false is exactly what you're trying to prove, so the argument is circular. But, I'll shut up now and let you properly justify your statement.
Unlike in the movies, contracts are not readable only by lawyers, and loopholes are not so common. I have read plenty of contracts, and found them understandable. Also, if you ask the person who has given you the contract, they must provide you with a complete understanding of what the contract entails, otherwise the contract will not be valid (I talked to a law student on this point). Both parties must be completely aware of both their responsibilities under a contract.
In my world, if most music contract provided benefits to anyone, then most signed artists would be speaking out against these contracts. They are, for the most part, a very passionate and vocal bunch. But this isn't happening, barring a few stragglers with (seemingly) bad contracts, so, again by modus tollens, there must be a fair few contracts which are doing the artists a service.
Anyway, we are blowing out of proportion a single point I was making towards a greater point, that is, there is no evidence that copyright is superfluous, while there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Clearly, you are angry at the record labels. That is your business, and I won't lie, they've given us plenty to hate them for. However, I reject the notion that this implies we should destroy copyright (that makes it my business), especially when the problem could be solved by artists doing themselves a favour by reading what they're signing. There are also plenty of other ways of reforming them, other than destroying 90% (a generous figure) of our artistic production. That's really the point I was trying to make.
To some extent. On the other hand, most people can tell the difference between a "regular" movie, and a "3D" movie/game. Regardless of whether or not you say a "regular" movie is in 3D, there is some distinction somewhere in the brain, and thus there is room for preference.
I doubt it, since your very next statement completely glosses over the issue.
Once $BAD_THING happens, $BAD_THING will happen. If we take for granted that $BAD_THING will happen, then I agree that $BAD_THING will happen. You just need to show me why $BAD_THING must necessarily happen, and you're all set!
Why must artists sign with a record label? If it makes them no money (or more precisely, gives them no benefits), then they will not sign. Period. Those that do only have themselves to blame for their stupid decision.
WTF? How is investing in and releasing a piece of music akin to "breaking a window"? I suppose that investing in culture is not an investment, and that providing entertainment doesn't improve enough on people's lives.
How on earth did you get an insightful mod?
I think you misunderstand. A copyright belongs to the artist, to be used however they wish. If artists are having trouble with their labels, it is between them and the label, no-one else. They don't need pirates telling them what is best for them, or stripping of their copyrights over some nanny-state paternalistic bullcrap. If they don't want to be signed, they won't sign.
Conversely, if they are signed, it means they wanted to be signed (or perhaps are indifferent either way). Maybe the figures floating around the internet don't tell us the whole story? A lot of people want the labels to fail, so a misinformation campaign wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
Um, no, the main benefit of copyright is so creators don't have to compete against free versions of all their works, their newer ones included. Seriously, read a book or something.
Where? Most of history's greatest works were created on commission, and most of the great modern works were created under copyright. I'm seeing, frankly, no evidence to support that claim.
Perhaps you're referring to the allure of stardom? Well, I hate to break it to you, but stardom comes from a rich culture (with rich people providing such culture), which comes from copyright. If you remove copyright, that too will fade. Quickly.
Wait, so your disproof of copyright's benefits is that one group of people might try to use it to control our thoughts? So, I guess we probably should outlaw P2P, since it might bring down our scientific progress and cultural growth? You're as bad as the **AA.
That's a particularly bad example. SMS and email have different benefits and short-falls, and as such, are used in different circumstances.
I say strawman.
... which is precisely why that isn't the justification for
Let's take stock, shall we? The purpose of copyright was to create and maintain a larger influx of artistic works, and that's exactly what's happened. It takes a pretty big stretch of the imagination to say that copyright failed.
Perhaps, but that doesn't mean you have to shoot them through your foot.
It makes more sense if you approach it from the (legally justified) point of view that the Las Vegas Review-Journal is entitled to some compensation for the infringement of their copyright. Then it just becomes an outsourcing service. Righthaven is suing Angle in lieu of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, and has already compensated Las Vegas Review-Journal before damages (if any) are paid out.
That's false, and I can provide a counterexample. I'm not religious in any sense, but I recognise that it requires a measure of faith* to say, with certainty, that no god exists. It is, in fact, the agnostics who are true sceptics without faith, waiting for evidence for or against the existence of a deity.
* The word "faith" has the wrong connotation here, but it's appropriate enough.
You set harder problems.
As someone who lives in Australia, I can say that, no, we really aren't heading down that road. Beware of taking slashdot as your news source; you can't believe everything you read.
Fanboy? I do not own, nor do I have ever intention of owning a PS3.
Was that based on evidence, or emotional knee-jerk? You decide!
Oh no! Don't make me post at 0 or -1! I'll do anything! I didn't need this "integrity" thing anyway...
Yes, mein censor! I will toe the party line from now on! I didn't mean to contradict you. From now on, if you say there is evidence, then I will unquestioningly believe you.
(Is that enough? Do you want more?)
Customer: When they called me and offered to remove my headlights, I only agreed because I thought it was a joke!
Slashdot: SOOONY BLOOOOOD!
Rest of the world: Dumb-asses.
That's some funny moderation. The examples just keep pouring in, don't they?
What evidence did the GP have to conclude that money somehow trumped consumer rights? He basically had, "Sony is rich", and "I hate Sony". I'm sceptical that the judge would have admitted those into evidence.
Never heard of it.
Damn straight, we're manly men! We're supposed to feel threatened by bright colourful things!