"Intellectual Property" Law

[TheBuzzSaw]

1.) The car-copying machine: good or bad? From my eyes (and I realize this was purely an analogy) I think this actually touches on an even broader issue of global economy. I don't think I need to harp on the obvious; there are literally millions of people around the world who make their living thanks to the Auto industry (manufacturing or sales). So of course obliterating that industry in one fell swoop would have cataclysmic effects on them, which of course would in turn lead to further cataclysm. This said I'm not opposed to such an invention, only that it be revealed carefully, timely, so as to allow all those millions of people to adjust, to find a new livelihood.

I disagree. If someone invents a car-copying machine, the world needs it yesterday. We should never ever hold back such innovations so that people can adjust their livelihoods. Heck, they can all have cars now for free. I'm sure they'll get by just fine.

If we take this analogy back to its source, we see why RCA, Sony, et al have fought so vigorously to hold onto their old business models as set forth decades ago with the invention of the record, and then radio, TV and finally the Internet. The big issue here is money. The freer information exchange becomes, the less chance there is for money to be made. Sure people can make money the old fashioned way, by toiling. But that's what White Collar existence is about. It's about making oodles of money without ever breaking a sweat.

I emphasized a line from your comment here. That is absolutely wrong. What people are afraid of is the ability to make money directly from the digital content. Sure, it'll become impractical to sell information in discrete units, but that's not what you said. You made a broad statement, which I've heard many times before: "less chance there is for money to be made". On the contrary, more money is made the freer information becomes. I'm sure you've heard of the authors/musicians/comedians who ended up making more money thanks to their content being spread freely among fans. If you want specific examples, I would be more than willing to cite them. The freer information becomes, the revenue streams adjust to alternate sources, but the content definitely remains as the driver of profits.

What I'm seeing in this article, what I'm feeling from it... is that to suggest these business models be scrapped is to suggest that Corporations be scrapped. And of course this leads back to global economy, and how it would be impacted. It's bad enough that iTunes started off as a way for no-names like myself to "get out there" and get paid a bit on the side, but now it's just another sea of faces with no real expectation of stardom to be had. In other words, the Internet may have granted a temporary alleviation of Big Business holding all the cards, and the little guy taking it up the ***, but it didn't stay that way for long, and with each new iteration of the Internet, comes a landslide of new angles, get-rich-quick schemes, and ultimately leads us to the same place we've always been in: little guys, taking it up the ***.

Where do you get this perception from? The world will always be a sea of faces, but the Internet still enables people with otherwise niche audiences to connect directly. Even amidst the hundreds of options, fans can still find that particular artist that really speaks to them. Sure, the big corporations who really get the Internet will definitely make big bucks, but little guys are really scoring big as well. Julian Smith? Toby Turner? iJustine? Rhett and Link? They all seem to doing just fine (probably making way more than I am), and they live their entire existences on YouTube... making people laugh... for free...

To combat this, you and me and millions of others have banded together to declare ourselves free of the tyranny of Big Business -because we can-. But is that not Windows you're running on your PC right this second? Okay maybe you're really good, and using an open source OS, and an open source browser to read this post, and perhaps you built your own PC using cheap(er) 3rd party parts... I find that no matter how you slice it, we'll still be entrenched in this Internet-thing, that's not built on freedom, but built on billboards. I have to pay for my access! Sure I can... "pirate" my neighbor's WiFi, but that IS stealing, and not because they're harmed necessarily, they may never notice a difference given we're all DOCSIS 3.0 in this neighborhood... they're harmed because they'd be paying for my access.

By that logic, buying a dog for my daughter is stealing? She didn't pay for it. Oh, but you were talking about permission. I share my Wifi all the time. Sure, people have the right to not share their Wifi too, but someone breaking in is not "stealing". Seriously, keep that word out of digital discussions. It simply does not belong. People paying for Internet are paying for a service, not the Internet itself. I mean seriously, do you charge people that want a glass of water?

So how do we really break these chains? No matter what we do... imagine: We start sharing our vast CD libraries from the 90's as MP3's ... using our PCs as servers and P2P sharing all these songs, entire albums. Because it's the Internet, people who have never originally paid for the CD are also listening to these works of art. Is that right? Is it just? Should it be allowed? Who should be punished, them for being inquisitive, or us for allowing them the access? Remember the start of just about every VHS in history... it cites an Interpol resolution regarding "piracy" alongside a chapter/title quip and an FBI warning. Granted this is mainly to prevent people like you or me, "commoners" from making our own Movie Theaters, and charging others to attend public viewings. Private Use Only. But it does serve a more general purpose of indoctrinating society into recognizing the difference between acceptable and non-acceptable use (by their standards, of course).

This is why it is inappropriate to drag these businesses entrenched in the 70s into the Internet era. It's only "wrong" due to legacy copyright culture. Do you realize how many content creators produce stuff for free today? (And don't you dare assume that means they have foregone the ability to make money! Having a free component != making no money.) Have you heard of Creative Commons? Have you seen the new crowd-sourced films today? Have you seen the increase in free indie films (where the director still made money)? The content culture is changing drastically. The current big dawgs like RIAA/MPAA will die a very slow and painful death, but it will happen (unless someone intelligent takes charge in those organizations). You seem to have your mind entrenched in this "copying is always evil" mentality. The big content businesses are so afraid of the changing tides that they made a move to make things like Creative Commons ILLEGAL. That's right: they are all about "rights" up until other artists exercise theirs and put out content for free. Then it's an unfair attack on their business model.

I can't speak for everyone obviously, but I want many industries to die in their current forms. I want new ones to rise. I want new industries that understand how bits really work and understand how people want to consume their content. For example, it astounds me today that photographers still have the audacity to charge tons of money for a photo shoot and still retain the copyright on the images. Really? What was all that money for? I purchased the opportunity to buy images of myself. Wow. That made sense back when photographers had to invest time/money into converting all those shots into prints for me to pick through. Today, we can make unlimited digital copies. I only hire photographers now who release the copyright. (I am even OK with a dual copyright where the photographer just wants to use the pics for advertising/sampling purposes.) The money is for the photographer's time and talent, not so he/she can turn around and offer to sell me the pictures. I can come up with similar endless rants about movies, music, and games.

It's time to change. More to come.

 

[gm jack]

@AltF4

But why then should certain people be exempt while others must oblige? The end result would just be poorer countries buying up the cheaper drugs, marking them up and undercutting the company that sold it to them in the first place.

I understand it is horrible that people are allowed to suffer over money, but it is the only way that people can be made to progress on a large scale.

 

[AltF4]

GM Jack:

If there is a business that requires the deaths of tens of thousands (and more) of innocent people in order to stay profitable, then that business deserves to go bankrupt.

But I don't really want to discuss that. It's a totally different discussion. I only brought it up to mention that I DIDN'T want to talk about it!

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I hope that cracked article isn't meant seriously ... but just in case - I'd like to say that a century ago he would probably be talking about how the automobile is putting all the horse carriage drivers out of work. If we can automate processes so that we don't need a human there, that's a good thing. The human loses his job, but really that just frees him up to move to an area where he will be more productive, and the consumer is better off due to the automation.

...And the car company starts selling cars for 1/10th of the cost but 1000x the profit, the investors and executives pocket the profits, and Johnny McNobody gets laid off and still can't afford a car.

I get it.

See, back then, as we now know, there was a business to be had in manufacturing cars. But get to a certain point, and suddenly the human element becomes completely obsolete. At the very latest when the robots start fixing themselves.

Anyway, inventors will still make tons of money by being first to market. If you invent a great new product then it will take time for others to copy you. That's one of my arguments about music actually, because this effect doesn't really apply to music - it can be copied instantly. But music artists will survive despite that due to alternative business models. My point is that if the problem can be solved by music artists, who face the problem of instantaneous copying, then it can be solved by other industries.

Not necessarily. Especially if you're, well, that lone inventor type: you make one... BMW appropriates it and before you have the resources to make a second, they're undercutting you by a mile.

Remember, when it comes to ideas, big companies have hundreds of "Idea guys" for that. When it comes to reverse engineering, big companies can afford the biggest engineering squads. When it comes to production, big companies can afford to mass-produce better than smaller individuals. I get that at the moment, patents are stacked in favor of the big guys... It's still not pretty without patents or copyright.

Note also that whoever comes up with the best post-scarcity business model will make tons of money, so that's a pretty big incentive. Just because I can't necessarily come up with the answer off the top of my head doesn't mean that the answer does not exist.

No, but again, refer to the above model. It's getting to the point where people are simply no longer necessary. I get it, a world with a replicator is better than a world without. But you're neglecting the very obvious fact that people are ****s. Hell, this is one of the most important driving factors of our economy-people are greedy *******s and want things. And when someone comes out with a machine to copy cars, they could offer it up to everyone and make the world a better place.

...Or they could not, cut their workforce immensely, and pocket the profits. In a world where these exact same people are already more or less bribing politicians to make things better for them and worse for the average working man, which do you think is more likely? I mean, I suppose there would still be jobs to be had in servicing those machines, and that'd be better than nothing. But we've honestly reached the point where too much further, and FARTS is the sole thing that will save us from your typical dystopia: the rich have EVERYTHING, the poor are consumers with no mechanism for consumption.

I mean, don't get me wrong. I'm a strong supporter of alternate business models in post-scarcity elements. Movies working with more product placement and in-film advertisements; open source software markets; musicians living from concerts, merch, and donations... But in some sectors, it simply cannot work.

 

[Sucumbio]

I disagree. If someone invents a car-copying machine, the world needs it yesterday. We should never ever hold back such innovations so that people can adjust their livelihoods. Heck, they can all have cars now for free. I'm sure they'll get by just fine.

Like I said in my reply to Alt, I'm not against the invention, it's the implementation that has to be careful. It's one thing to invent it, patent it and sell the rights of use to car manufacturers who can then utilize the invention to the world's mutual benefit (IE now that cars can just be copied the price should come way down). It's another thing entirely to just start randomly copying people's cars, lol.

I emphasized a line from your comment here. That is absolutely wrong. What people are afraid of is the ability to make money directly from the digital content. Sure, it'll become impractical to sell information in discrete units, but that's not what you said. You made a broad statement, which I've heard many times before: "less chance there is for money to be made". On the contrary, more money is made the freer information becomes. I'm sure you've heard of the authors/musicians/comedians who ended up making more money thanks to their content being spread freely among fans. If you want specific examples, I would be more than willing to cite them. The freer information becomes, the revenue streams adjust to alternate sources, but the content definitely remains as the driver of profits.

Actually, yeah I'd love some examples. I don't doubt it's possible. It just doesn't seem as obvious to me as it apparently is. Let me use myself as an example.

2004 I released a CD on CDBaby. For 50 bucks out of pocket they 1.) Agree to sell my CD on their website, a cut of the profits of which I get. 2.) Digitally Distribute my CD through iTunes, Sony.com, and like 50 other e-stores. 3.) Give me a UPC and for small fee more a credit card scanner that I can use to scan at venues if I want to sell my CD there. 4.) A bunch of other nifty do-it-yourself themed business things.

Now this seems like a lot for 50.00. It is, really... it saves a lot of time. I could technically do all that myself but getting your tracks on iTunes is especially bothersome, same with Sony music online. I feel as if I got my money's worth.

So of course the question becomes "how do I get people to buy my CD?" The answer lies in advertising yourself in the form of social networking and radio play either over the air or on e-radio.

And this is where I ran into problems. A radio broadcast scout offered to get some of the tracks he heard and liked into regular rotation in the greater Seattle area. Cost: $3,000.00/mo. A similar service but online wanted a one-time 500.00 then 50.00/mo for international e-radio rotation.

Then the question of "how do I afford to keep copies of the CD available for purchase?" arose. You see CDBaby didn't do that part, that was up to you to make the copies, cover art and all, and snail-mail them to their headquarters. I mailed 10 copies and it cost nearly 40 dollars all told. With the prospect of being in regular rotation the fear arose that I'd not be able to afford to make enough copies to meet demand should there be any. But fear not! Said another vendor. Pay -me- 1000 bucks and I"ll make 5000 copies of your CD!

><

Now as it turns out, I do offer many of the tracks off the album for free at my own website, so technically if someone really wanted to, they could just download them for nothing. If they wanted to pay, they'd be paying for the additional tracks, the cover art, and the happy-happy joy-joy feeling of knowing they're helping to support me and encourage me to make more music. And I'll grant that this whole thing went down before Youtube got big. Hell MySpace Music was still rather new back then.

But after researching many of the so-called MySpace artists, I came to find out that they were doing the same thing I was doing with one major exception: Live Performance.

And it should be noted that in the history of record production, the Live Performance remains the single best money generator for artists and their labels. I mean you might pay 10 bucks for a CD at Walmart, but you can drop 100.00 bucks easy on concert tickets. In the meantime trying to make money online with these sorts of things boils down to luck, or advertising. Well, no one wanted to advertise on my website, lol it was too pedestrian, not enough monthly hits, etc. So instead I run an ad for Wikipedia which is free for me, free for them, and supports something I believe strongly in.

Where do you get this perception from? The world will always be a sea of faces, but the Internet still enables people with otherwise niche audiences to connect directly. Even amidst the hundreds of options, fans can still find that particular artist that really speaks to them. Sure, the big corporations who really get the Internet will definitely make big bucks, but little guys are really scoring big as well. Julian Smith? Toby Turner? iJustine? Rhett and Link? They all seem to doing just fine (probably making way more than I am), and they live their entire existences on YouTube... making people laugh... for free...

Well I guess I've addressed part of this, mainly with the whole, I don't Youtube thing. It's funny yeah, and it's a good source of entertainment. Justin Beiber is a good example of someone who's made it big thanks to Youtube. I haven't heard of those other people, but I get the idea. From what you're saying when I say "the little guy" I am really referring to the little guy who's not yet invested the amount of time required to make an impact on the net. I can buy that. I've hated the internet since 1999 or so, when the .Com's started creeping up, and the Internet changed from being a place to find good porn and game cheats to ... well what we have now. I mean, really... when I was on the net originally, it wasn't even the internet, and hanging out in BBSs or MUDs was epically nerdy, but now, everyone's doing it! I sell lighters at my store branded "text" lighters, whose artwork consists of LOL BRB IDK etc. Really, though? I invented LOL you mutha ****ers. Bitter suco is bitter.

By that logic, buying a dog for my daughter is stealing? She didn't pay for it. Oh, but you were talking about permission. I share my Wifi all the time. Sure, people have the right to not share their Wifi too, but someone breaking in is not "stealing". Seriously, keep that word out of digital discussions. It simply does not belong. People paying for Internet are paying for a service, not the Internet itself. I mean seriously, do you charge people that want a glass of water?

Well yes, actually. If said people are coming into my home on a daily basis and asking for a glass of water every hour or so, damn straight I'm gonna charge. It's not like the water's free! And so too is my internet connection not free. So if I'm gonna spend my hard earned dime for it, I'm not about to be okay with some slacker next door who's too cheap to pay for their own using my connection, my bandwidth, my Internet. Mine. Obviously I don't own the internet, obviously I'm paying for the access -to- it. But until the government starts providing free access to it the same as they do broadcast television, then I must be less than philanthropic.

--------

Both you and Alt have made an excellent point regarding bits. I guess I'm just old school. To me, a copy is a copy, be it hard-matter or digital. Hard-matter copyright laws and digital copyright laws may very well be incompatible with each other, I'll grant that. But what you're seeing is something that I personally have suffered from, an inability to grasp the innovation necessary to change a standard bit-processing business model into one that suits a Free and Open Internet. You should write a book on it, and then distribute it for free, using the business model for profits of the free book as an example. This idea originated within me, and you may use it for free

 

[ballin4life]

...And the car company starts selling cars for 1/10th of the cost but 1000x the profit, the investors and executives pocket the profits, and Johnny McNobody gets laid off and still can't afford a car.

I get it.

Uh ... cars became widespread pretty quickly. And the makers of cars deserved to make a lot of money since they brought an incredibly useful product to market for a relatively inexpensive price (due to improvements that lowered costs, like assembly line manufacturing).

See, back then, as we now know, there was a business to be had in manufacturing cars. But get to a certain point, and suddenly the human element becomes completely obsolete. At the very latest when the robots start fixing themselves.

But when that happens it will be a good thing. Because we could all just relax all day while robots do everything for us. Unless of course the robots become self aware and turn against us, but we've had plenty of movies to prepare us for that event.

Becoming more efficient in production is not a bad thing. If you want another long run view, tons of farmers lost their jobs as new farming equipment was invented. But all this really did was free up workers for other important tasks. Instead of everyone being a farmer and making just enough to survive, we have just a few farmers (plus tons of machines/capital) and a bunch of workers who provide other goods and services.

Not necessarily. Especially if you're, well, that lone inventor type: you make one... BMW appropriates it and before you have the resources to make a second, they're undercutting you by a mile.

There's a pretty simple solution to this which happens all the time - sell your idea to the big company.

One can protect oneself via non-disclosure agreements and such.


Anyway, it sounds like the issue really is that the lone inventor likely doesn't have the capital to produce his new line of cars or whatever. But I don't see a problem with this - he'll just partner with some people and raise that capital.

Remember, when it comes to ideas, big companies have hundreds of "Idea guys" for that. When it comes to reverse engineering, big companies can afford the biggest engineering squads. When it comes to production, big companies can afford to mass-produce better than smaller individuals. I get that at the moment, patents are stacked in favor of the big guys... It's still not pretty without patents or copyright.

Big companies also are going to be the best at inventing new stuff. There really aren't many "lone inventor" types anyway, because they won't have the capital to even go about inventing things.


Let's also look at the alternative situation - you get a patent, and get to charge monopoly prices for 20 years or whatever it is, and EVEN IF someone else comes up with the idea independently you get to squash them. That's a lot of lost economic efficiency there.

Maybe the current system leads to overinvestment in new technologies - i.e. investment in technologies that have a marginal benefit but are only profitable under monopoly conditions produced by patents. For example we have tons of new drugs coming out all the time that provide very marginal benefits to patients, but because the chemical structure is slightly different the company can patent it and charge high prices for it.

No, but again, refer to the above model. It's getting to the point where people are simply no longer necessary. I get it, a world with a replicator is better than a world without. But you're neglecting the very obvious fact that people are ****s. Hell, this is one of the most important driving factors of our economy-people are greedy *******s and want things. And when someone comes out with a machine to copy cars, they could offer it up to everyone and make the world a better place.

...Or they could not, cut their workforce immensely, and pocket the profits. In a world where these exact same people are already more or less bribing politicians to make things better for them and worse for the average working man, which do you think is more likely? I mean, I suppose there would still be jobs to be had in servicing those machines, and that'd be better than nothing. But we've honestly reached the point where too much further, and FARTS is the sole thing that will save us from your typical dystopia: the rich have EVERYTHING, the poor are consumers with no mechanism for consumption.

If someone invents a replicator, they will sell the replicator to people and make tons of money. I don't see the problem with this. Yes, many people will lose their jobs, but they will move to other industries where there is demand for labor. Meanwhile, consumers now can replicate things and are much better off.

If replicators are invented there won't be such a thing as a poor person, because there won't be any scarcity.


It would create tons of jobs if we all went back to subsistence farming. But that would be stupid. The purpose of the economy is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT to create jobs. The purpose of the economy is to raise our standard of living. Increases in technology raise our standard of living.

I mean, don't get me wrong. I'm a strong supporter of alternate business models in post-scarcity elements. Movies working with more product placement and in-film advertisements; open source software markets; musicians living from concerts, merch, and donations... But in some sectors, it simply cannot work.

How do you know? The answer is, you don't. Sorry, but you're not smarter than the market, and so you can't see every possibility at once.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

But when that happens it will be a good thing. Because we could all just relax all day while robots do everything for us. Unless of course the robots become self aware and turn against us, but we've had plenty of movies to prepare us for that event.

I'm just gonna focus on this for a moment, because this is the breaking point. You think that those in the top echelons are going to be willing to share. I find that utopian at best and delusional at worst. Again, what if they won't share? Are we going to pry the life-changing, scarcity-ending product (that makes the entire rest of the world obsolete) from their cold, dead hands or what?

Let me make the vision I have clear again.

First, industry X finds a way to manufacture what it has to manufacture with absolutely no human effort whatsoever. The car copier, or what have you. Then, they lay off all of their employees, and keep the new tech under wraps. They lower their prices heavily... But now there are X hundred thousand people with no money, and no jobs–the money that they would otherwise get (and/or need) is being pocketed by the execs and shareholders.

Then industry Y follows suit. Suddenly there are more people with no jobs, no money, and no way to live.

Then the agricultural industry follows suit. Suddenly people have to start begging for handouts...

Do you get what I'm getting at here? This post-scarcity vision that people like you have is reliant on a few things. Either the method is made public, or the person behind it just gives away free stuff, or...
If it doesn't belong to the public, how the hell is a post-scarcity thing supposed to work? It doesn't matter if the technical supply is infinite, if the people with the control over supply say "no", we're boned. And at that point, they will have all the power they need to do that... forever. Leaving us waiting on a handout from people with essentially all the power over us. Except this time, we don't have any form of bargaining chip in the free market, except maybe violent uprising. Right now we have our jobs, we have money, and they need that money. But post-scarcity? Money doesn't matter. Goods have no value as they are infinite. Work has essentially no meaning. We have nothing to bargain with.

 

[ballin4life]

The people that get laid off would naturally find other work after a bit of time in other industries.

But let's suppose the worst possible situation. These rich people that have replicators now have NO demand for labor or goods. Guess who still has demand for labor and goods? All those people that are out of work! They'll still be able to trade with each other. Note also in this scenario the rich people aren't making any money by holding back the technology (they already have infinite resources, so making money doesn't matter) - so they don't have any reason to hold back the technology.

There are also certain things that replicators cannot possibly apply to - e.g. services, so there would always be demand for those. But it really doesn't matter.

Furthermore, in a post-scarcity world, you would need very little money (assuming money still exists) to buy anything. The companies with replicators would need to hold prices low enough to outcompete "non-replicator" businesses, after all.


What would probably really happen is a huge industry would boom around the use of these replicators - how to produce them, how to improve them, etc. This actually kinda happened already with computers, which are essentially equivalent to replicators for documents.


Anyway, I think it's at least arguable that artificial scarcity might be good for creativity or technological advances (though I don't necessarily agree), but I'd certainly disagree that it's a good thing for labor or goods.

 

[T-block]

BPC, I have a hard time seeing your proposed scenario as inevitable. In fact, I think it's actually quite unlikely to pan out that way. No company would be able to keep such a technology "under wraps". Someone inside would come out with it, motivated by morality or even personal greed.

Not to mention I think if something like a replicator were actually invented, I'm sure the government and international groups would become involved, since the advent of such an invention would have major ramifications on the world's biggest problems. I cannot see such a device remaining private.

 

[AltF4]

This whole talk of "replicators" is getting a bit out of hand. It was used only as an analogy, and isn't terribly relevant what a major conglomerate would or wouldn't do if they had actually invented such a device. (Not to mention that the laws of physics tend to get in the way of this)

The point is that scarcity is a bad thing for society. I hope this is obvious enough. There may be some small set of profiteers from scarcity, but it is a net loss. Upon having eliminated scarcity in something, we should embrace that technology, not make it illegal.

Perhaps a better analogy would be that if we could give unlimited no-cost fresh drinking water to every human on Earth, we should do it. Dasani may lose some profits, but for society it's a big gain.

 

[El Nino]

But why then should certain people be exempt while others must oblige? The end result would just be poorer countries buying up the cheaper drugs, marking them up and undercutting the company that sold it to them in the first place.

Current drug patent laws in the U.S. allow for the manufacture of generics after a specific amount of time. Certain populations may be made exempt because society has other aims besides economic ones. For instance, if levels of HIV/AIDS rise drastically enough, society will be impacted all across the board. The economy will also suffer when a high enough number of the population is seriously ill. This is especially true for any highly contagious diseases such as influenza. Therefore, governments have an interest in protecting society from those kinds of disasters, even at a cost to the private business sector.

I understand it is horrible that people are allowed to suffer over money, but it is the only way that people can be made to progress on a large scale.

That is an oversimplified view of human progress and evolution. We progress not just from competition but from cooperation as well.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Perhaps a better analogy would be that if we could give unlimited no-cost fresh drinking water to every human on Earth, we should do it. Dasani may lose some profits, but for society it's a big gain.

Obviously, but this analogy fails in one major regards: nobody is paying people to develop water. Water does not need new developments, new R&D, there is no real way to improve upon water (as much as Evian wants you to think). I figure you may have addressed this concern, but let's assume for a moment that some product that needs constant R&D (say, computer programs) becomes post-scarcity (or rather, already is post-scarcity)... Who pays for the R&D costs? Let's imagine for a program like Portal 2, which has a huge team working for several years on it. Clearly, the developers would not get anywhere near the (multimillion dollar) budget they spent back on donations alone...

 

[AltF4]

Don't assume that selling your bits as a packaged up unit (as if it were scarce) were the only way to profit from software. Plenty of people, including myself, make a healthy living writing Free (Libre) and Open Source software.

The obvious "but how?!" question comes up, so I'll give you some examples:

1) GPL exceptions. The GNU General Public License requires that an derived works also be licensed under the GPL. Thus, proprietary applications are unable to include GPL libraries and other programs. However, writers (usually large companies) may for a price, pay the author of a GPL program the ability to include a GPL program in with their proprietary program. Lots of F(L)OSS programs get funded this way.

2) Accompanying items. This is where the software is free (as in price) but some other good is sold at a price. Hardware / software combinations are common here. IE: You buy a new device, and the driver is Free Software.

3) Advertising. Adds needn't be huge explosive banner ads all over a program. Even simple ones on the project website can often be enough the support a project. Also, when it makes sense, receiving payment for exclusive space within a program can be highly profitable. For instance, do you know that Google pays Mozilla handsomely for having Google as the default search option?

4) Services. Offer services related to your project. In the security world, for instance, this often includes using your own Free Software programs to perform penetration tests. RedHat has revenues nearly 1 Billion dollars from creating Free Software and selling support contracts.

5) Direct Development. If a particular party wants a specific functionality, then they can hire you to implement it. This is how a large majority of web developers operate today.

6) Selling Free Software. That's right, you can still sell copies of Free Software, and people still buy them. The GNU organization itself has famously supported itself for years by selling disks with Free Software. It makes sense to for the customer for a number of reasons: when bandwidth is low / large data, ensure authentic source, pre-packaged and configured, etc...

7) Donations. Take a peek at websites like Kickstarter and Flattr, and you'll realize that there are tons of people all around the world with their wallets open willingly donating to Free Software (and other Free Culture endeavors).

Loads of people use all of these methods and more to make Free Software as a profession. And there are many more profit models that aren't here, which are complicated. Consider the Google business model. (Which is more complicated than just "advertising") The give out tens of millions of dollars to Free Software each year. Not just as a charity case.


And finally, I'll quote Cory Doctorow: "Technology give'th and technology take'th away". Maybe it's the case that some people who used to make big bucks 10 years ago will not 10 years from now. This is a normal progression, and not something which is to be legislated away.

Even if we suppose that there is no way to profit from creating Free Culture, consider what you're saying. You're saying that we have to make a choice between big budget $100 million dollar video games (which are arguably not improved from the 1990's 8 bit games) and a Free and Open Internet.

Well, I don't know about you, but I choose the Internet.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

All right, you have a bunch of good alternative business models for computer software. While I could argue that many of them seem more like charity than anything else, and that ad space only works as long as some company is profiting from it, I won't bother.

How about cars. Who's gonna pay the massive R&D costs for a top-of-the-line car if everyone gets said results? Unless I'm missing something here...

 

[AltF4]

Now, now. This is the Debate Hall. Don't say that you COULD argue something. Do it. Or don't bring it up. Saying that you "could" argue something is just a cheap way of making it sound like you have a valid point without the risk of putting it forth.

Of course each one of the above doesn't apply to everyone. Why would you expect it to? There's nothing wrong with having dozens of different models that fit for different people. Also note that the above are not mutually exclusive. You can do all of them at the same time! And that's just what I came up with off the top of my head.


I don't care about cars. I said I wanted to drop that side topic as it's pointless. It was just an analogy. If you don't like the analogy, then just forget it. There is no such thing as a car replicator.

EDIT: Seems like a lot of people (Not just you, Budget) are getting hung up on the car replicator analogy. Should I remove it from the OP? Is it not helpful / counterproductive?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

What about the blueprints to a car? Or hell, even just the ability to reverse-engineer it? Replace car with any mass-produced tech good. Cars, bikes, hardware, prosthetics... Things that, while not post-scarcity, would have serious problems if they were post-scarcity. This is what I'm talking about. And this is not some hypothetical situation... This could very well happen if there were no laws about the intellectual property of the item at hand!

 

[AltF4]

1) I'm going to accuse you of having not read the Original Post of this thread. I know it's long. I'm sorry. It's a book, I know. But it talks specifically to these issues. Please do take the time to read the whole thing.

2) Your comments perfectly exemplify the dangers of perpetuating this myth of "intellectual property". Here you manage to lump together all sorts of things which bear no resemblance to one another, and each have their own merits and flaws. You seem to be referring to trademark, trade secrets, and patents as best as I can tell. But it's not really coherent. I can't be sure what you're even talking about.

3) The only law I support abolishing is Software Patents. Please do not insinuate otherwise. I make it very clear in the OP exactly what I envision the different laws should be.

 

[AltF4]

Senate Bill 978 currently in front of Congress would make criminal penalties for "streaming" copyright infringement. That can mean that everyone here who streams games of Melee and Brawl run the risk of going to jail. No joke.

Oppose this.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/06/felony-penalties-proposed-illegal-streaming-senate

 

[Sucumbio]

Yes, this is quite troubling.

The Powers That Be might very well have good intentions with this amendment, trying to attack those massive organizations that pirate movies and other protected works of art, but in the meantime, the act could literally destroy innocent lives and silence the alternative media. -Senate Bill 978 Seeks to Make “Infringing” YouTube Videos a Felony, Silencing the Alternative Media

As I mentioned on another board when this issue first came to light, the thing I see happening if this somehow passes is that Youtube be forced to remove it's "share this video" feature. Otherwise it'd be like ... outlawing soft drinks in school cafeterias but having free vending machines filled with Coke products all over the place.

Also there has to be some sort of revision that'll take place in terms of what defines an offence to this law. 10 times in 180 days is foolishness. You can get 10 times in one second, just by having 10 users all click on the play button at once.

I understand the intention of this bill, even so far as to say it's more than just attacking "pirates of media" but to further entrench America in a digital distribution conglomerate, but to go about it in this way, with such loose language and not expect serious backlash is very telling of our current public officials and their true lack of understanding when dealing with these sorts of things.

 

[AltF4]

Call me cynical, but I don't think this (nor the other slew of similar bills recently put forth) is a case of "Well intentioned legislation with fatally vague wording".

No, the MPAA and RIAA have massive legal teams who pour millions of dollars into these bills. They know exactly what they're doing. They quite intentionally want to have the ability to bring felony charges against a vast and broad swath of the Internet.

 

[Sucumbio]

I wonder to what end, though... for example an acquaintance of mine faced thousands of counts of piracy, each one for each track he'd gotten through P2P networking. SonyBMG and others all took him to court! He'd been set up in a massive sting operation because he'd be pirating all sorts of stuff. Ultimately he was found guilty, on all counts, and sentenced to.... nothing. All he had to do was write a hand written letter of apology to each of the dozens of corporations and entities that had filed charges. Also he had to promise to never do it again (ha!). Now of course he still does it, but he goes through all kinds of "safety measures" to ensure he's not caught... ghosting his ip, etc. I warned him that he'll probably end up in jail but he's like, nah they won't get me, I'm cautious, unlike before. Yeah, okay. lol but point was, it was a virtual slap on the wrist, an annoyance.

Now they want to up the ante to actual federal prison time. There's 1.) not enough prisons in the Universe to house all the breakers of this law if it were suddenly in place right this second 2.) not enough courts to handle all the due process 3.) not enough resources to prosecute this many transgressors.

So basically, it'll come down to who's doing it the worst, kinda like w/that dude. He was really ... really bad, compared to say, me who might occasionally replace a copy of a song using Limewire that I originally had on CD and have since lost the CD. I will use pirate bay from time to time to get full versions of stuff because demo versions are usually crap. But I am in no means hoarding thousands of movies on a server somewhere and sharing them with the world. Where will they draw the line? This vague approach only seems to be leading to problems with enforcement rather than some clever way to be a catch-all. They've got to at least specify who really would be considered breaking the law, and why, don't you think?

 

[AltF4]

I made a post in another thread about this same bill, here:
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=12949690&postcount=27

You're right that there's not enough jail space for every copyright infringer on the Internet, because everyone on the Internet infringes on copyright. Just like there isn't a soul alive who drives and can say they don't break dozens of traffic laws daily.

The intent for the MPAA/RIAA has always been not to litigate every infringer, but rather to simply take a small number of cases and mount their heads on pikes for everyone else to see. (Legal students here should recognize the illegality of such a blatant system of collective punishment.)

Also, was your story about your friend rhetorical? Or possibly not in the US? Because to my knowledge, only two file sharing cases have ever gone to court in the US. The Jammie Thomas-Rasset case, and the Joel Tenenbaum case. Thousands of blackmail letters have gone out, but all have settled out of court.

 

[Sucumbio]

Supposedly it was true, I was going off his word, and perhaps he only felt compelled by the letter itself and not a court decision, but he was fairly specific, citing that he was forced by the Attorney General to write these letters (he didn't specify if it was state or US, but probably state.) Given his nature, I wouldn't put exaggeration beyond him, and it's possible that he too agreed to the resolution without actually having to appear in court like these others you mention.

That's a good link because the impact to this board is in itself a serious issue. There are SO many links to youtube videos on here, and if this law goes through, MLG will have to suddenly either take them down or face prosecution.... it wouldn't be enough to just lock the threads, either, because they'd still be viewable.... they'll have to be purged from record. ugh.

 

[ballin4life]

I don't understand how images of a video game are part of the copyright on the game itself.

 

[AltF4]

It's not just "images of the game". It's the specific characters like Mario and Luigi. Nintendo has a copyright on their images and you are making a "public performance" by streaming them which is an exclusive right restricted by copyright.

If it was just a picture of a brick wall, but was "from the game" then there wouldn't be any infringement. Nobody has a copyright on brick walls. But the threshold of copyrightability is incredibly low. Just about anything can be.

 

[El Nino]

In my understanding, this bill is intended to target footage of films and TV shows. By its wording, it would also include video games, but I don't see the game companies benefiting from it in terms of cracking down on streaming footage of game play. They actually benefit from allowing their fanbase to share that footage because it increases interest in their products. And game companies make a product that can't be consumed by just watching, as opposed to film and TV shows.

 

[Sucumbio]

You'd think that, but of course there's still no streaming of Brawls or Melees at MLG tournaments, despite several attempts by MLG to get it approved by Nintendo.

 

[AltF4]

A large percentage of executives of entertainment companies are old and woefully out of touch. They don't view streaming as free advertising. They see any unauthorized use of copyrighted images as "stealing".

It is painfully obvious to all of us that it is not, but that simplistic mindset is how we get legislation like this.

 

[ballin4life]

It's not just "images of the game". It's the specific characters like Mario and Luigi. Nintendo has a copyright on their images and you are making a "public performance" by streaming them which is an exclusive right restricted by copyright.

If it was just a picture of a brick wall, but was "from the game" then there wouldn't be any infringement. Nobody has a copyright on brick walls. But the threshold of copyrightability is incredibly low. Just about anything can be.

So if I draw a picture of Mario and put it on my wall, that's a violation?


And it's even worse when you consider the video game case. After all, I BOUGHT the game - it's MINE. As long as I'm not making bootlegged copies I don't see how it's a violation.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

So if I draw a picture of Mario and put it on my wall, that's a violation?

Yep. I wish I was kidding.

 

[rvkevin]

So if I draw a picture of Mario and put it on my wall, that's a violation?

I'm fairly certain that you would need to profit off of it for it to be a violation. Profit would be interpreted fairly broadly. Streaming for a tournament would be considered marketing to increase future attendants which is the host's revenue stream, which would make it a violation. If you don't, it would be considered fair use (there are other factors, but it would generally apply).

FYI, one of the criteria for deciding whether something is protected by fair use: "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes"

 

[AltF4]

I'm fairly certain that you would need to profit off of it for it to be a violation.

This is not true. It SHOULD be the case, yes. Commercial use of copyrighted works SHOULD require either permission or a statutory license. But this is not how the law works today."Willful" infringement and profit motives may increase penalties, but it does not change the illegality of the action.

It's sad that I have to say so, but you cannot try to apply "common sense" into this topic. Because the laws here have no sense.

 

[rvkevin]

This is not true. It SHOULD be the case, yes. Commercial use of copyrighted works SHOULD require either permission or a statutory license. But this is not how the law works today."Willful" infringement and profit motives may increase penalties, but it does not change the illegality of the action.

It's sad that I have to say so, but you cannot try to apply "common sense" into this topic. Because the laws here have no sense.

I'm not trying to apply common sense, I'm stating what is legal under the fair use doctrine. One of the criteria considered is whether you are using it for commercial uses or not. There are other factors however, such as whether or not it negatively effects the market value of the product being used (i.e. making uploading movies/songs to the internet for everyone to access for free would be illegal even if you don't profit), but a simple drawing of a Nintendo character wouldn't effect that market. Has there been a case where something like this has been found illegal?

 

[AltF4]

Yes, there are fair use exceptions, for the sake of our readers I'll repost what those 4 factors are:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the 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.

It is not necessary for your video to have all of these. It is not necessary to have a majority of these. You can be ruled unfair while having 3 out of the 4. You can be ruled fair while having only 1 of the 4. It just depends.

You can't simply say that your use was non-commercial, therefore it was Fair Use. I'm not a lawyer, so my ability to cite cases is about tantamount to my ability to google for them, and from what I through various activist organizations.

The case of Dan O'Neil and the Mickey Mouse Liberation Front was pretty famous. Though technically it ended it settlement.

It's just like you can't say "I only used a small portion of the work, it's Fair Use". Yes, substantiality is on the list above. But the other factors in your use might override it. Consider the famous case of hip hop "sampling". Even a relatively short sequence of notes or sounds from another song can be copyright infringement.

 

[rvkevin]

The case of Dan O'Neil and the Mickey Mouse Liberation Front was pretty famous. Though technically it ended it settlement.

It's just like you can't say "I only used a small portion of the work, it's Fair Use". Yes, substantiality is on the list above. But the other factors in your use might override it. Consider the famous case of hip hop "sampling". Even a relatively short sequence of notes or sounds from another song can be copyright infringement.

I don't find these examples convincing. The O'Neil case didn't find him at fault. It may be that Disney doesn't want its image used in a particular way and uses the legal system to apply pressure. Even if they are in the wrong, a small writer would not be able to financially sustain a lengthy legal battle and economically, the wisest move would be to settle. It's cheaper to settle, even if you're right. That's an objection against the judicial system, not the defense.

Concerning the sampling, it says that there was only an issue with it once it became a commercial force and I take it that they are competing with the original authors of the material. Without hearing the sampling, I can't comment on how substantial the part taken out is to the whole song. Its important to note that this is not simply done on a percentage basis. I don't think that it could be construed as being for public use. This means that at least three of the four criteria are not met for this issue. This would be a fairly glaring flaw for anyone trying to use fair use. This issue basically boils down to whether the mixing decreased the market value of the original works, and that is something I can't comment on.

To get back to the Mario drawing, are you going to contend that such a drawing would not be covered under fair use, or that it would decrease the market value of the Mario series?

One point of agreement, there will be lots of disagreement in this area. Not every judge will agree on every case so it may simply be a case of which side runs out of steam first or until it makes it to the Supreme Court. I think this would be similar to whether one decides someone has plagiarized. There's unequivocal citation, there's paraphrasing, and then there's plagiarizing, which some gray in the middle. Is the defense of ""I only used a small portion of the work, it's Fair Use" be adequate if those two words are the title (Finding Forrester...)? Would it make a difference if those two words were somewhere less noticeable?I hope this illustrates that the size has different impact or value relative to the original piece depending how crucial it is to it.

 

[blazedaces]

I don't find these examples convincing. The O'Neil case didn't find him at fault. It may be that Disney doesn't want its image used in a particular way and uses the legal system to apply pressure. Even if they are in the wrong, a small writer would not be able to financially sustain a lengthy legal battle and economically, the wisest move would be to settle. It's cheaper to settle, even if you're right. That's an objection against the judicial system, not the defense.

Concerning the sampling, it says that there was only an issue with it once it became a commercial force and I take it that they are competing with the original authors of the material. Without hearing the sampling, I can't comment on how substantial the part taken out is to the whole song. Its important to note that this is not simply done on a percentage basis. I don't think that it could be construed as being for public use. This means that at least three of the four criteria are not met for this issue. This would be a fairly glaring flaw for anyone trying to use fair use. This issue basically boils down to whether the mixing decreased the market value of the original works, and that is something I can't comment on.

To get back to the Mario drawing, are you going to contend that such a drawing would not be covered under fair use, or that it would decrease the market value of the Mario series?

One point of agreement, there will be lots of disagreement in this area. Not every judge will agree on every case so it may simply be a case of which side runs out of steam first or until it makes it to the Supreme Court. I think this would be similar to whether one decides someone has plagiarized. There's unequivocal citation, there's paraphrasing, and then there's plagiarizing, which some gray in the middle. Is the defense of ""I only used a small portion of the work, it's Fair Use" be adequate if those two words are the title (Finding Forrester...)? Would it make a difference if those two words were somewhere less noticeable?I hope this illustrates that the size has different impact or value relative to the original piece depending how crucial it is to it.

Unfortunately I don't believe this example of plagiarism quite cuts it. You see, with books and most other works, there's an extremely large set of things that are completely legal: trading a book, selling a book, using a book in a way that was not intended (sleeping on it, a weight), giving away a book.

There's a small subset of things that one can not do with a book, and most of these things are not done by individuals, mainly by large publishing companies. Then, within this set of things there is fair use which can be used to defend oneself if the case is unclear.

But this is absolutely NOT TRUE about copyright laws in regard to music/movies/programs. Instead the entire situation is flipped. Basically, because even loading a song/movie/program is creating a copy somewhere on your computer (your local temporary memory, otherwise known as ram), EVERYTHING becomes illegal... unless it's deemed acceptable by the creater/copyright holder. It is literally illegal to sell songs,trade songs,copy songs,move songs,back up songs,etc. I wouldn't be surprised if it was illegal to sleep on a cd...

You can be sued for ANYTHING THAT IS ILLEGAL and then you have a tiny little window of "fair use" for defense. I'm sorry, but no, this is NOT the fault of the justice system. It's a stupid system set up so that any gigantic corporation can sue individuals for ridiculous amounts of money and bury them in legal fees... unless they settle. Right and wrong flew out the window long ago. This has nothing to do with fairness. It just has to do with keeping control in the hands of those with money to burn.

Edit: And this is why currently if a company tells youtube to remove a video it is automatically removed. There is not a single care for the rights of the individual to place this video on the site. They don't check whether the video is acceptable under fair use or not. In the justice system we're used to the idea of "innocent till proven guilty" ... but in all of these cases it's guilty till proven innocent.

-blazed

 

[AltF4]

rvkevin:

Simply being non-commercial does not by itself make your use fair. See here:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Fair_use#Common_misunderstandings

Which cites the following case:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/L.A._Times_v._Free_Republic

It's pretty explicit in Copyright Law that this isn't the case. I don't see room for debate here. Copyright does NOT give a pass to all non-commercial uses. (Though it should)

 

[rvkevin]

Let me quote myself: "There are other factors however, such as whether or not it negatively effects the market value of the product being used (i.e. making uploading movies/songs to the internet for everyone to access for free would be illegal even if you don't profit), but a simple drawing of a Nintendo character wouldn't effect that market." I acknowledgde that there are other factors, but for the hypothetical posed by ballin, the only criterion that applies is the first one, which concerns whether it is commercial or not. You're barking up the wrong tree on this one.

Copyright does NOT give a pass to all non-commercial uses. (Though it should)

Why should it? Why should I be able to give away other people's works for free without their permission ? This is why copyright exists in the first place, to enable the authors of the material to get their share of the proceeds.

You can be sued for ANYTHING THAT IS ILLEGAL and then you have a tiny little window of "fair use" for defense. I'm sorry, but no, this is NOT the fault of the justice system. It's a stupid system set up so that any gigantic corporation can sue individuals for ridiculous amounts of money and bury them in legal fees... unless they settle. Right and wrong flew out the window long ago. This has nothing to do with fairness. It just has to do with keeping control in the hands of those with money to burn.

You can be sued for anything. In criminal court, it is not illegal for you to defend yourself from an attacker using reasonable force. However, you can still be charged with murder and you may have to defend yourself (now in court) with the tiny window of self-defense as your defense. Just because you haven't done anything illegal doesn't mean that you won't need to defend yourself in court. In simple terms, if people are being charged with crimes and then being convicted of those crimes when they have not done anything illegal, that is a fault of the justice system. It's analogous legally of killing someone, but it was not illegal, and copying someone's work, but it was not illegal. If you copied someone's work, but it was not illegal, and you end up being punished, that is a fault of the justice system. I don't see how you can get around saying that it is not.

 

[blazedaces]

Why should it? Why should I be able to give away other people's works for free without their permission ? This is why copyright exists in the first place, to enable the authors of the material to get their share of the proceeds.

? If you buy a book/tool/chair/any material object practically in the world you can give away these items without the original maker's/builder's permission. Why do we have some concocted idea that "works" have some strings attached to them? In writing people do this all the time, they just quote and cite the original author's works. Imagine being sued for quoting a famous author because you did so without their permission. This idea sound so incredibly dumb. Yet for some reason you're under the impression that when we talk about music the rules have to change? Why? Give me an actual argument for this. Why should you be sued for drawing a picture of mickey mouse? It's ludicrous.

You can be sued for anything. In criminal court, it is not illegal for you to defend yourself from an attacker using reasonable force. However, you can still be charged with murder and you may have to defend yourself (now in court) with the tiny window of self-defense as your defense. Just because you haven't done anything illegal doesn't mean that you won't need to defend yourself in court. In simple terms, if people are being charged with crimes and then being convicted of those crimes when they have not done anything illegal, that is a fault of the justice system. It's analogous legally of killing someone, but it was not illegal, and copying someone's work, but it was not illegal. If you copied someone's work, but it was not illegal, and you end up being punished, that is a fault of the justice system. I don't see how you can get around saying that it is not.

I would argue that what you can be sued for is limited by what cases would be thrown out before ever reaching court. I at least feel that the threat of being sued for copyright infringement by large corporations for some nonsensical law is a lot more likely to go to court than being sued for other things.

We're having this discussion because (among many other reasons) the MPAA and RIAA have at least threatened to sue quite a large number of individuals who have barely done a thing in regards to copyright infringement.

You're trying to say it's just the fault of the justice system and I simply don't agree. Other aspects of the law are not this vague and idiotic. You can't just lump the entire justice system together any time the law is involved.

-blazed

 

[rvkevin]

Why do we have some concocted idea that "works" have some strings attached to them?

Because we prefer to live in a society where these pursuits are able to take place. This is merely the means that allows authors to pursue those ends.

In writing people do this all the time, they just quote and cite the original author's works.

Right, commentary is mostly covered under fair use.

Imagine being sued for quoting a famous author because you did so without their permission.

Even if they did, not saying that they should win. In any case, the defense would be fair use.

Yet for some reason you're under the impression that when we talk about music the rules have to change?

I didn't advocate the change of any law or rule, so I don't know what rules you are talking about here.

Why should you be sued for drawing a picture of mickey mouse?

Not saying you should. Even if you were, the defense would be fair use.

You're trying to say it's just the fault of the justice system and I simply don't agree.

I said it’s a fault, which means that it is a failing of the justice system, which is also synonymous with "flaw". [facetiousness]I suppose you think that it’s a positive characteristic of the justice system that innocent people are sentenced?[/facetiousness]

learn2readingcomprehension