"Intellectual Property" Law

[RDK]

First of all, I'd like to say thanks for making this topic Alt, since I've been wrestling with this as of late. Like CK, the objectivist in me feels that it's ethically wrong for people not to be rewarded for their hard work. Society wouldn't be able to function without people's selfish motivation, and that's what drives the free market.

However, I do concede the fact that specific ideas cannot be owned like services. You can't suppress people's thoughts; punishing someone for having the same idea as you is inane and ludicrous.

The only logical way of going about this would be for you to release your product / idea into the market at a cost of your choosing, and allow it to be pirated if need be. Piracy guarantees publicity, and any publicity is good publicity. Copyright and patent laws don't protect individual artists and authors anyway.

However, once again, your assertion is just another re-wording of "But without copyrights/patents, nobody will make money, and thus nobody will make the product!". Which is patently (pun intended) wrong.

My viewpoint is that the originator / creator of the work should be able to sell his product at the price of his choosing. If knock-offs are made, then it's up to the consumer to decide for himself which one he'd rather spend his hard-earned money on--the producer that takes time and displays quality workmanship, or the cheap inexpensive knockoff?

And when does "fair use" come into play?

 

[Ref]

My viewpoint is that the originator / creator of the work should be able to sell his product at the price of his choosing. If knock-offs are made, then it's up to the consumer to decide for himself which one he'd rather spend his hard-earned money on--the producer that takes time and displays quality workmanship, or the cheap inexpensive knockoff?

And when does "fair use" come into play?

The problem with this is that you will lose money because a person decided to make this inexpensive knockoff. The point of patents and other forms of "ownership" is to keep your idea so you make money. While they gain by doing practically no work or thought but making a cheaper version of you product and selling it. There will always be people who buy the cheaper version. The people who sell the cheaper products know this and therefore make them.

People turn to this system to up their gain. Why earn 5,000 when you can earn 10,000 in a seemingly with no risk way.

What AltF4 is saying is that this system is abused to make people even possibly lose more money than if they never turned to the system at all and let people leech off of their product ideas and sell it.

 

[AltF4]

Like CK, the objectivist in me feels that it's ethically wrong for people not to be rewarded for their hard work. Society wouldn't be able to function without people's selfish motivation, and that's what drives the free market.

I also think that creators of ideas should be rewarded. And in a system such as the one that I am proposing they would be.

Remember that I am advocating for Free Information, which means free as in "free speech", not free as in "free beer". You certainly will be able to, should be allowed to, and be encouraged to, make money off of your ideas. But you can do so in a way that doesn't restrict the freedoms of others.

And when does "fair use" come into play?

"Fair Use" is an exception written into Copyright Law (not patent or trademark law). It is an exception to the restrictions of copyrights given a set of circumstances. (note that it is not the only exception. There are others) These include for scholarly purposes, review, and critique.

Parody, for example, has been deemed a form of critique. This is how people like Weird Al make songs legally. Also how movies like "Scary Movie" and "Space Balls" can be made. They are considered critiques of the original work, and are exempt from the normal restriction of copyright.

More info.

 

[arrowhead]

"why should copyrights and patents be done away with?"
"IBM and microsoft"
:D

alt, do you think they could be kept if they were somehow rewritten to be more specific/fair, or that the whole thing is beyond repair and should be scrapped.

 

[Overload]

The problem with this is that you will lose money because a person decided to make this inexpensive knockoff. The point of patents and other forms of "ownership" is to keep your idea so you make money. While they gain by doing practically no work or thought but making a cheaper version of you product and selling it. There will always be people who buy the cheaper version. The people who sell the cheaper products know this and therefore make them.

It almost seems like you're proposing a monopoly. There are many different versions of many different products. There is also usually a clear difference in quality. If one product is much cheaper than another, it is most likely because it was made with cheaper, lower-quality materials and won't do as well for that reason. Most people who make knock-offs are looking to make money without putting in much effort and without spending too much money. If the consumer wants to save money and is fine with getting a lower-quality version of the same product then they will do that, while just as many people would rather have the higher-quality product for a little more money. In this situation both companies should make enough money to stay in business.

 

[AltF4]

"why should copyrights and patents be done away with?"
"IBM and microsoft"
:D

alt, do you think they could be kept if they were somehow rewritten to be more specific/fair, or that the whole thing is beyond repair and should be scrapped.

I will answer this in more depth, I believe. But the short answer is that I think Patents need to be scrapped completely (or VASTLY redone), Trademarks can stay (but enforced more loosely), and that copyrights should involve a compromise that I will elaborate on in just minute or two...

It almost seems like you're proposing a monopoly.

Why that exactly what a copyright/patent/trademark is! A government sponsored monopoly on an idea.

 

[Ref]

It almost seems like you're proposing a monopoly. There are many different versions of many different products. There is also usually a clear difference in quality. If one product is much cheaper than another, it is most likely because it was made with cheaper, lower-quality materials and won't do as well for that reason. Most people who make knock-offs are looking to make money without putting in much effort and without spending too much money.

While it may be made cheaper, people will buy it regardless. Quality sometimes doesn't matter if you have a set amount of money on an object that can do a certain job.

People will always buy cheaper stuff for several reasons:

1. They can't afford the more expensive kind, people do not always have enough for the real one.

2. Some people don't care about quality if it can do the same job, some people also just can't see quality and/or believe that a higher price doesn't mean it's better quality.

3. Cheaper is just easier, some people want to just save money.

4. If one last 2 years and one last 4, and I will only use it for 1 year why get the one that cost more if they both do the same job. It's the same way people hire workers to be paid less. The less you pay the more money you have.


As long as there are those kind of people by not turning to this flawed system you just lost a lot of money because some people are buying the cheaper version, it'll always be like this in anything.


The system is bad because while I may stop knock-offs big companies know the system so well they can just completely take advantage of it and force me to lose all the money I would have made and more, along with possibly my product idea.


Really it's a lose-lose situation. Turn to a system full of traps and risk or lose lots of money thanks to knock-offs.


The reason people would turn to the system is because they don't know how flawed it is. Really If I had been put in this situation I would just deal with the knock-offs making money off of my idea, that they did little to no work on. Plus people will also probably never know who originally came up with the idea.

So yes the government is practically cheating you to earn bigger businesses more money.

It really comes down to your choice:

Lose money to cheap knock-offs

Or put yourself at risk, and earn all your work's/ideas worth while possibly eventually being cheated of everything by the system and the people who know it better.

It's a lose-lose. The risk are too high. Plus the loss is great.

The system is flawed.

 

[Overload]

4. If one last 2 years and one last 4, I will only use it for 1 year why get the one that cost more if they both do the same job. It's the same way people hire workers to be paid less. The less you pay the more money you have.

So if you were going to buy a washing machine and you knew one brand generally lasted longer and performed better than another you would still get the other version when you know it isn't as efficient and is more likely to break down sooner? You'd rather have to go out and buy another one instead of having a solid machine? Over a long period of time you could end up spending more because you kept going with the cheap alternative that didn't last as long so in the long run you had to buy more than one when you could've bought the higher-quality product which would've lasted significantly longer.

Also, the more money you spend in making sure your product functions well and is of high quality with a decent life span the more likely you are to sell it.

If one last 2 years and one last 4, I will only use it for 1 year

what?

 

[Ref]

If one last 2 years and one last 4, and I will only use it for 1 year....

I think that will clear that part up for you. I'll edit the and into my post.

 

[AltF4]

Added to the OP:

*4) Copyrights of Infinite Duration. It is written into the US Constitution itself that copyrights MUST be of finite duration. That is, after all, the entire purpose behind a copyright. We allow the holder of the copyright to have a government sponsored monopoly on their idea for a short amount of time. During this time, the author will be allowed to profit from their idea exclusively. Then the idea becomes part of the public domain, and anyone can use it.

But obviously holders of copyrights don't want them to expire! They have a government sponsored monopoly. Why would they let it expire?

Well, they're in a bit of a hard spot. That line about copyrights being of finite duration is written into the actual constitution itself. That would mean it would take a constitutional amendment to get rid of the line! So that's out of the question.

So instead, all they do is extend the duration of copyrights by 20 years... every 20 years.

Look at the time time of copyright duration in the US. It's absurd. Authors do not require 95 years to profit from an idea!

Take a look at the latest copyright extension act: The Mickey Mouse Protection Act., and you'll see exactly what's going on. Big corporations like Disney were about to lose their copyrights on characters created eons ago, and thus about to lose money. So they paid off washington to allow them to keep it.

What do you think they're going to do in 2018? Sit and watch the copyright expire? No sir! They'll extend it yet again, infinitely.

Solution? Unlike Patents (which are covered later) I don't believe copyrights to be fundamentally broken. Just the implementation, more than anything, is corrupted. The following is a kind of compromise that I would be quite happy with. In my ideal world, I would love to see copyright eliminated entirely. But a more realistic solution is as follows:

You will find this solution rather *surprise surprise* similar to how copyrights were envisioned by the founding fathers when writing the constitution. We should make clear that we are accepting that giving a copyright is an acceptable evil used for the purpose of encouraging knowledge being put into the public domain.

This evil should be made to be as temporary as possible. I cannot imagine a literary work that cannot be profited on in 5 years time. So that seems like a good benchmark.

Also, the Fair Use doctrine should be made to extend much further than it does now. Fair Use should be extended to all non-commercial applications. Essentially, if a person or entity is not trying to profit off of another person's idea, it should count as fair use.

In this manner, copyright should be made to only to prevent plagiarism. Nothing more. All else is Fair Use.

 

[Mediocre]

AltF4, you keep insisting that creators would still be able to make money off the things they create. I've explained why I don't think that would work. You seem to ignore my explanations, and simply keep insisting that they would get payed.

I even provided an example where you system had been tried, and apparently had failed at providing any compensation for the creators of books.

So, please, explain to me specifically how creators would make money.

 

[SuperBowser]

Yeah, my very first question in this topic was how will the creator make money and I don't feel there's been a satisfactory response. Yet.

The concept of copyright originates with the Statute of Anne (1710) in Britain. It established the author of a work as the owner of the right to copy that work and the concept of a fixed term for that copyright. It was created as an act "for the encouragement of learning", as it had been noted at the time that publishers were reprinting the works of authors without their consent "to their very great detriment, and too often to the Ruin of them and their Families".

This was Mediocre's example - a real life situation. When the creator has no rights to their work, how can this possibly be prevented? The closest solution you've given was the notion of ''self-policing'' among comedians. But a business won't care about such things.

I don't know if you vastly overestimate the ability of the artist, or underestimate the bussinessman. But either way, the businessman will become king in your proposed system. And in the most descipable way.

 

[AltF4]

AltF4, you keep insisting that creators would still be able to make money off the things they create. I've explained why I don't think that would work. You seem to ignore my explanations, and simply keep insisting that they would get payed.

I even provided an example where you system had been tried, and apparently had failed at providing any compensation for the creators of books.

So, please, explain to me specifically how creators would make money.

The answer to this question depends greatly on the market in question. There isn't a single answer that applies to all.

In the case of music: Musicians do not significantly benefit from record sales. They only do indirectly from gaining popularity. It is well known that musicians receive the majority of funding through live concerts. You see, they are selling their abilities as a service here. This is a model which can survive in the future.

In the case of movies: Movie theaters are doing quite well today. As I linked to earlier, both 2007 and 2008 made record profits for the movie theaters. This is because theaters offer a service. Theaters will see no threat from technology until everyone can have a screen the size of a stadium in their house... which is quite unlikely to ever happen.

Written literary works, such as books are unique, however. Blatant plagiarism is easier to get away with for written works than with music and film. As such, it may require an anti-plagiarism mechanism as I described in my "compromise" section posted earlier.

When the creator has no rights to their work, how can this possibly be prevented?

I felt compelled to respond to the wording you chose to use. The creator has rights. The creator always has rights. The one(s) that are losing their rights are the users and consumers. A copyright does not "give" rights to the copyright owner. It takes them away from everyone else. This distinction is important, as the entire argument from morality (the entire point of the thread) is based upon it.

 

[SuperBowser]

Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. Yes, the general population lose the right to access that work freely, but it also gives the creator the right to distribute his work as he sees fit; for example, it protects an author in the literature topic that you just covered!

Now that you aren't for abolition of all the copyright system I can agree with some of your ideas For similar reasons though, do you not feel that the patent system will also need to persist in some form?

edit: Also, I think the impact of your changes would still destroy some industries. For example, the literature industry could cope with the new system now. But as we become more technologically advanced, more and more people will download the books rather than require a physical copy - I already do this for studying. I either get cheap developing world textbooks for my course or use the internet. What will become of authors' livelihoods when we reach the point that no one wants a physical copy anymore?

Most authors can't and don't wish to make a living from book tours, merchandise etc. They just want to write good books - and this is a great enough contribution to society.

 

[Overload]

Why don't they just make it so patents can't be extended? By allowing them to be extended they are essentially infinite and not finite. There should either be no extensions allowed or only one extension.

 

[BFDD]

I agree with overlord. Treat patents the same way you suggested we treat copyrights. Put a limit on how long they can keep them before it becomes public domain. As long as the limit is enforced.

Though how many people here actually know much about business? As much as that idea sounds good to me, I have absolutely no knowledge of the business world.

 

[Crimson King]

You want proof why real copyrights are needed? Look up Kimba, the White Lion.

Synopsis: Disney ripped off this (I believe Japanese) cartoon that and turned it into The Lion King, their most well known cartoon. I forget the legal reasons why, but Disney got away with it, and what's this? Their reputation wasn't tarnished at all because they are ****ing Disney; they get you at birth. This kind of this will happen repeatedly: big company capitalizes on a small, older companies idea without reimbursement and their reputation goes untarnished.

In fact, as Mediocre pointed out to me, that big company will have it even EASIER under a "free information" deal. Instead of creating original ideas, they go to local markets where people can't market their stuff beyond what's around them. Say they find a film maker who made a GREAT movie, but it was only local, or statewide. They can then take that movie, put my name in the credits, then sell it as their own, and there is nothing anyone can say or do about it.

 

[Mediocre]

In fact, as Mediocre pointed out to me, that big company will have it even EASIER under a "free information" deal. Instead of creating original ideas, they go to local markets where people can't market their stuff beyond what's around them. Say they find a film maker who made a GREAT movie, but it was only local, or statewide. They can then take that movie, put my name in the credits, then sell it as their own, and there is nothing anyone can say or do about it.

Exactly.

The companies with distribution systems would have all the power. Everyone will would be s**t out of luck, except musicians, because they can charge money for live performances.

Basically, anyone who couldn't preform live would be screwed.

 

[Jam Stunna]

When did being a writer (or any non-performance art) become a sustainable business model anyway? If the only way to make money in an industry is to impose arbitrary restrictions on the consumer, is that industry viable?

Like I said to CK: let's say that I have a book that I really like, and I don't want to mark it up with notes. As it stands, I can't make a copy of that book for my own use. Does that make sense?

What copyright says is that I don't actually own the book I purchased. So why did I give someone my money?

 

[Mediocre]

When did being a writer (or any non-performance art) become a sustainable business model anyway?

Tell that to the actors and producers of every movie that's been released commercially. The authors of all the science fiction books I've ever read. The creators of all the video games you or I have ever played.

They make their living off this stuff. You can't say that it's not a "sustainable business model", because for many people, it is.

If the only way to make money in an industry is to impose arbitrary restrictions on the consumer, is that industry viable?

Arbitrary? You think restrictions that encourage people to produce much of the art that you and I consume daily are arbitrary?

I would apply a different descriptor. "Practical", perhaps. Or maybe "necessary."

If a law has demonstrable positive effects, can it really be arbitrary?

Like I said to CK: let's say that I have a book that I really like, and I don't want to mark it up with notes. As it stands, I can't make a copy of that book for my own use. Does that make sense?

It's called fair use, and it's now built into the legal system.

What copyright says is that I don't actually own the book I purchased. So why did I give someone my money?

You own the physical book. You just don't own the information contained therein.

Seems simple enough to me.

 

[Jam Stunna]

You own the physical book. You just don't own the information contained therein.

Seems simple enough to me.

Seriously? I sure as hell don't buy books for the paper.

 

[Eor]

Seriously? I sure as hell don't buy books for the paper.

You buy a copy of the novel. You are not buying the authorization to make more copies, but a single one

 

[Jam Stunna]

You buy a copy of the novel. You are not buying the authorization to make more copies, but a single one

Why do I need authorization to make a copy of MY book for MY personal use? Do I need authorization from farmers to make an omelet instead of scrambled eggs? Do I need authorization from Toyota to sell my car to my neighbor? Do I need authorization to make a "Greatest Hits" mix CD of my favorite songs?

I didn't write the book, or harvest the eggs, or build the car, or write the music, but I paid for them so they are now mine. Monetary exchange for goods implies transfer of ownership. I can't pass the ideas off as my own since that's plagiarism, but how can you give me your product in exchange for my money and then not relinquish all claims to the product?

What you're suggesting is that I pay full price for partial ownership (I get the pages, but not the words). Why should I pay for that arrangement? Why should anyone?

 

[Eor]

Why do I need authorization to make a copy of MY book for MY personal use?

Because by making a copy you are manufacturing the book.

Do I need authorization from farmers to make an omelet instead of scrambled eggs?

Eggs are consumables, they do not hold a copyright over it

Do I need authorization from Toyota to sell my car to my neighbor?

Nope. Do you need authorization to sell your book to your friend?

Do I need authorization to make a "Greatest Hits" mix CD of my favorite songs?

Only if you give it away

I didn't write the book, or harvest the eggs, or build the car, or write the music, but I paid for them so they are now mine. Monetary exchange for goods implies transfer of ownership. I can't pass the ideas off as my own since that's plagiarism, but how can you give me your product in exchange for my money and then not relinquish all claims to the product?

The author would not be selling the rights to the words, in this case

What you're suggesting is that I pay full price for partial ownership (I get the pages, but not the words). Why should I pay for that arrangement? Why should anyone?

Because then you can read the words on the pages. If you want to buy the rights to the book, go buy the rights.

 

[Mediocre]

Why do I need authorization to make a copy of MY book for MY personal use?

Um... you can.

That's why I mentioned Fair Use.

 

[SuperBowser]

The artist and businessman are the cornerstones of our society. There are exceptions to the rule, but in most cases an artist requires the businessman to distribute their work. The only way to ensure this model works is to introduce laws that encourage this relationship.

If the creator is given no control over their work, you disrupt it. Now the businessman can take anything and everything an artist creates and profit off the work, failing to compensate the artist, under protection of the legal system. The businessman will always be more effective at selling a product than the artist - that's their job!

Copyrights and patents need to exist in some form.

 

[manhunter098]

Or you know, you could try a new model that doesnt need the businessman as much (or at all).

 

[SuperBowser]

Well that certainly isn't the model being proposed.

edit: and then you are making the value judgement that a businessman's skills aren't valuable to society.

 

[AltF4]

Um... you can.

That's why I mentioned Fair Use.

Let's talk about Fair use for a moment. Fair Use is determined on the basis of the following criteria:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

(full website)


Reading those words, you would seem to think that Fair Use is fairly broad, and covers cases where the user is genuinely using the product, or doing so for non-commercial purposes.

But this is not the case, and it is not how Fair Use is actually enforced.

(This link is from New Zealand, but I included it because it's humorous)

But more to the point:

Only if you give it away

This is not true. It is quite illegal currently to make copies of copyrighted work.

It is illegal to make a backup copy of your music. It is illegal to make a copy just for yourself (one in the car, one in the home). It is illegal to make a compilation CD of your favorite tracks from CD YOU OWN.

Are these Fair Use? Not according to US law!

 

[Jam Stunna]

^This. I was just waiting for AltF4 since he can explain it much better than I can.

All this talk about "Fair Use" anyway strikes me as a piecemeal approach to trying to fix the inherent problems of copyright law. For example, you can't talk about a football game or rebroadcast it, according to the NFL.

http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/08/29/the-tech-industry-wants-you-to-support-the-fight-for-fair-use/

Yet Tivo is legal. The contradiction there seems pretty self-evident. It would be one thing if the law wasn't keeping up with technology, but instead organizations use the law to bludgeon people.

Like this.

 

[AltF4]

Oh, and remember how your substitute teacher in the 6th grade always used to show you "Apollo 13" just to shut up the class when the real teacher was out?

Yea, that was illegal.


Clearly the current system is broken. Instead, we should work to create a system that ISN'T broken, and actually encourages and stimulates free thought, free exchange of ideas, and the proliferation of those ideas.

Go and read what is listed under a blue star in the OP (if you haven't yet already). It is my proposal for a new copyright law. I hope you will find it satisfactory.

 

[SuperBowser]

Ok, so say that system is in place. The book industry will still be dead in the next century because it will be possible for everyone to download the information of a book for free. Authors will no longer make a living being... an author. Is that fine?

This problem extends to more than just one industry.

 

[AltF4]

Physical books will exist well into the foreseeable future. There continues to be a market for a book that people can hold, crinkle, and stick on their shelves in a way that you can't do with e-books.

The system that I have suggested does indeed prevent others from profiting from ideas which are not theirs. Thus it would be illegal for a book publishing company to sell (physical) books which contain information that is copyrighted by someone else. That would be plagiarism.

But the information contained within the book is free (free as in freedom). And thus the users and purchasers of this book are free to use this information in whatever way they choose, so long as they don't attempt to profit from this work while it is still under copyright.


What you should notice about this system is that it's remarkably similar to what we have today, but with the bull**** cut out. The contents of any book is already available for free on the internet today, just like in what I'm proposing. You can just go out and grab it any time you want. But people still buy books.

You fail to recognize that supply and demand are not the only forces behind consumer decisions. This is what happens when you are blinded by Adam Smith's invisible hand. Look at artists like Nine Inch Nails, Radiohead, and the other thousands of artists who offer their work freely online and in other mediums. And yet they still get paid.

You fail to see that there are more ways of making money than selling something like a product. Just because something is free doesn't mean it's free.

 

[SuperBowser]

I wasn't talking about profiting from online downloads. I was simply talking about downloading - this is allowed in your system after all. eBooks already exist along with the fancy palmbooks or whatever they're called. Eventually there will be a point that physical books are obsolete, whether that's 50 years or 200 years from now. I am talking about this situation, not now. In the present day, most people still buy physical books because the technology hasn't become advanced enough yet.

Nine Inch Nails don't offer all their music for free download and the examples you gave are from the music industry anyway. But as far as I know, only books whose copyright has expired are legally available online, so I don't understand your comment.

I want examples for books. Is there an author who doesn't sell a single book (physical or not) that makes money? Surely he will have to rely on donations.

Earlier you implied that the current system does not help creators, while your system would be an improvement for them. I don't believe that at all.

 

[Crimson King]

I wasn't talking about profiting from online downloads. I was simply talking about downloading - this is allowed in your system after all. eBooks already exist along with the fancy palmbooks or whatever they're called. Eventually there will be a point that physical books are obsolete, whether that's 50 years or 200 years from now. I am talking about this situation, not now. In the present day, most people still buy physical books because the technology hasn't become advanced enough yet.

Amazon's Kindle is probably the best eReader money can buy because it looks like real paper. Also, it has free wireless that is available anywhere. If the price goes down, I can see it becoming as popular as MP3 players because it can play MP3s as well as hold books, so you can have the audiobook playing while you read.

Nine Inch Nails don't offer all their music for free download and the examples you gave are from the music industry anyway. But as far as I know, only books whose copyright has expired are legally available online, so I don't understand your comment.

I want examples for books. Is there an author who doesn't sell a single book (physical or not) that makes money? Surely he will have to rely on donations.

Earlier you implied that the current system does not help creators, while your system would be an improvement for them. I don't believe that at all.

Nine Inch Nails is an awful example. They made their fame and money in the 90s before this stuff was even an issue. Now, though they oppose piracy, they give away music because the record labels try to hurt them, and they are ****ing rich. Rich bands like them and Radiohead, who if they announce a concert it will sell out in minutes, can afford to do stuff like that.

 

[AltF4]

Nine Inch Nails is an awful example. They made their fame and money in the 90s before this stuff was even an issue. Now, though they oppose piracy, they give away music because the record labels try to hurt them, and they are ****ing rich. Rich bands like them and Radiohead, who if they announce a concert it will sell out in minutes, can afford to do stuff like that.

Nine Inch Nails got the amount of downloads they did because of their fame, but fame was not the sole reason they were financially able to do it. Look at the thousands of bands on myspace who freely give away all of their music. They are all just local artists, trying to get popular. That way they can get known and make money in concerts.

Copyright does nothing for the up-and-coming or struggling band. (IE: The vast majority of bands) It is not necessary for them.

 

[Crimson King]

Yes, but without copyrights, nothing is protecting big bands from jacking the material from those local bands.

In fact, as stated at the still unanswered example with Kimba, in a no copyright world, all big bands have to do is find talented, but undiscovered local bands, take their songs, put the writer of the song in the credits, and they are able to reap the benefits. There is nothing that will stop that from happening. It's not as big of a deal as the movie example, but it's still pretty big.

 

[AltF4]

Yes, but without copyrights, nothing is protecting big bands from jacking the material from those local bands.

In fact, as stated at the still unanswered example with Kimba, in a no copyright world, all big bands have to do is find talented, but undiscovered local bands, take their songs, put the writer of the song in the credits, and they are able to reap the benefits. There is nothing that will stop that from happening. It's not as big of a deal as the movie example, but it's still pretty big.

And in a word where people read what I've written multiple times already, I don't have to repeat myself.

*points to the blue star in the OP*

I would be in favor of a form of copyright which prevents plagiarism. (The profiting of others' ideas)

 

[Mediocre]

Alt, your stance on allowing copyright for books seems to me like a recent development. It appears that you've made a concession that, in some cases, copyright is necessary.

You acknowledge that for books, a no-copyright system simply won't work. Companies with distributing methods will be able to make money off the work of the authors.

How is that different from anything else? Movie makers would have their movies stolen shown in theaters all across the country, legally, . Television channels would invest money in a a show, only to have it become popular and have it stolen by every other television channel, so that they can air it with their own commercials.

If you eliminate copyright laws for any form of mass produced media, you create a system in which no one has any reason to invest time or money on producing that media, because they stand to gain nothing from it. Most of the television and movies you watch are produced with money as the main motivating factor. You eliminate that factor, and those movies and television shows stop getting made.

If you're fine with the only television or movies you see being low budget, next-to-no investment affairs, then go ahead and try to eliminate copyright for those mediums. But I have a feeling Bill Nye wouldn't have been interested in hosting a show where he didn't get paid.

 

[SuperBowser]

Ok, so long ago, I said I would respond to the link (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html) you provided at the end of the first page of this topic lol. I just wanted to get my first question answered (I’m still not happy with your answer but nevermind…). A lot of the things I’m saying have been mentioned in this topic already but hopefully I'm more specific. Correct me if I'm wrong


The author only speaks of the software industry, which I am pretty clueless on, so I may be wrong in some areas. I think he only covers this industry because he already realizes his proposed changes would be unfeasible to lazily apply across the board.

The first section rubbed me the wrong way with its judgmental stance. It gives an example of a creator who will go to court if someone plagiarizes his idea, without compensation. He then chides the same man for selling said idea to a corporation. After going through the author and book example in this topic, I think we can agree there is absolutely nothing wrong in the creator’s actions. Plagiarism should not be allowed; it is the creator’s idea, they deserve money for their work and they need a businessman to put their idea into action.


The next sections were ‘Programming is Fun’ and ‘Funding Free Software’. I’ve heard a similar argument used against my course and my (hopefully) future profession so many times. The parallels are haunting and it’s still rubbish. The author makes the claim that if you remove the monetary gains of a profession, it will be okay because people who ‘’truly’’ wish to be a programmer will become one anyway. He goes so far to say ''A mere living is easier to raise.'' when faced with how to pay programmers.

If you significantly reduce the salary of a job and nothing else has changed, you will only harm that profession. Why would someone who is capable, hardworking and intelligent settle as a programmer when they should make double the salary for the same ''effort''? The answer is they won’t. People don’t simply choose their profession on one factor. They may like to be a programmer, but they aren’t going to work their arses off without a fair pay. Someone who ‘’truly’’ wants to be a programmer is not necessarily more talented than the guy that showed the middle finger and got a different job – I’d argue there’s very little correlation. You end up with a less talented workforce.


''What do Users Owe to Developers?'' had an interesting line.

''Eventually the users will learn to support developers without coercion, just as they have learned to support public radio and television stations.''

Well of course! I don’t know about America, but in England we pay taxes to support public radio and television (BBC). Furthermore, I have to pay an exorbitant price of 125 pounds for the privilege of having a TV set in my house. If software is going to be paid for through taxes, then the proposed system could work. For programmers. The country pays taxes (which will be the developer’s pay cheque?), software is developed and the public downloads it. Countries are under no obligation to share their work, but I’ll ignore this problem.

Unfortunately, this suggestion does not and could not apply to every single industry that uses trademarks, copyrights or patents. It's only a fix for some cases. Authors (and others) still suffer


The author’s conclusion ended with something that’s already been brought up by CK.

''I make the assumption in this paper that a user of software is no less important than an author, or even an author's employer. In other words, their interests and needs have equal weight, when we decide which course of action is best.

This premise is not universally accepted. Many maintain that an author's employer is fundamentally more important than anyone else. They say, for example, that the purpose of having owners of software is to give the author's employer the advantage he deserves—regardless of how this may affect the public.''

I dislike his assessment of the opposition’s stance; I could just as easily flip his statement the other way round. The aim of these laws is to take the morally correct position, as you yourself said in your first post. I just disagree with you on what is ‘’right’’. I believe, in the society and system we live in, it would be unethical to deny a creator control of their work.


Despite everything I've written, the article actually did convince me that this system could work. But so many more changes than what is detailed here would be required. Our society is capitalistic, individualistic and materialistic. You are asking for a fundamental change in the way we live and until that happens...