Hard Copyrightists: Enemies of Progress

Post Reply New Topic

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_7p4cvBURk[/youtube]

'We will bury them', the USSR did not.

There is no such thing as progress, time does not add an ounce of destiny to the world. There is simply, people, who agree or disagree about which way they want things to go. People who are not religious cannot simply substitute 'progress' for 'destiny' and think the term has any ontological value. Time blesses no man, or his cause, it has forgotten better causes than this one, it has forgotten better men than you or I will ever be. I honestly think lefties should read USSR propaganda before they pontificate on 'progress'.

Minor rant over.

I can accept that the modern copyright system is flawed, perhaps in fundamental ways. The alternative, proposed by some, the "you own none of your idea's" is no answer at all. If you think the system does not work, then by all means suggest one. The present answer, the 'trust me not your government' attitude of the Assange's of this world, does not inspire the unconverted or fill them with confidence. When no answer is at present sufficient, demonizing the opposition, is perhaps the worst tactic you could resort to. Since there is no decent mainstream answer, either from industry or it's opposition, filling the discussion with diatribe will only serve to drown out calls for compromise or new ideas.

The only copyright I utterly support is that no-one is allowed to profiteer off someone else's work or falsely credit themselves as it's author without their explicit permission. As far as I'm concerned, that hurts businesses and individuals way more than piracy. It's one thing to have your product freely distributed; but to have someone else claim it's theirs, profiteers immensely from it and turns it into a big business and then forces you into a legal battle over who actually owns the copyright, yeah, way more costly. In fact corporates have engaged in such theft of IP and since an individual can't fight the power of a corporation, you lose out unfairly.

As far as piracy goes, cracking down on it will only strip away our civil liberties until there's nothing left because believe me, that's the only brute force way you could decrease it. Key word being decrease, not stop as it'll never be stopped.

However the internet is a potential mass-market, and offering cheap incentives through more download subscription services could see the same effect of decreasing piracy, increase profits and no need such Orwellian legislation. To sum it up, work with the nature of the internet, not against it.

How is taking away my revenue from my creative work any less damaging to me than someone else profitting from it?

In fact, I am better off if someone else passes of my ideas as that person's own. At least if that person is profitting from my work, I can--in theory at least--sue that person for recovery of the money that properly belongs to me.

But when someone steals my work, I am left without even a theoretical remedy. Someone has the use of my work and I have not been paid for it, and there's an end on't. I can't identify the offender, so I can't sue for the royalty that I am due. And even if I could, a single user's royalty would be so small that I would be non suited by the maxim de minimus non curat lex.

I wholeheartedly agree, however, that artists and industry must harness the internet, not break it. But first we must cure freeloaders of the notion that their piracy is victimless--for it's not.

in america, copyright is basically forever [95 years plus automatic subsequent 20-year extensions unless the copyright holder specifically opts out]. THAT is a major roadblock to progress, IMHO. i don't believe the founders intended for it to be a means of perpetual legacy rent-collection. unfortunately, europe has got the same selfish mercenary rent-collecting bug and has now extended its copyright laws to 70 year terms. the direction seems to be going towards more truncation of public domain. i much prefer copyLEFT.

I think the core problem is the concept of what a copy right is, and what it does.

I personally disagree that any individual or entity can claim sole ownership of any idea or media. I do think that recognition should be garnered to the originator. But exclusive ownership of intellectual property strikes me as inherently flawed.

I personally believe that anything can and should be used by any and every one. But that the originator should receive compensation. I don't think that the originator should have the right to decide by whom it is used, however. They lose that right when they share the idea with another, either directly or indirectly.

This is obviously not how the law is written currently. I just happen to strongly disagree with the current law.

Recognition or compensation? You use both of those words, but it's not at clear whether you actually mean both of them in both statements. That's a crucial issue.

Supposing, however, that you mean both, in both senses, I am still left with the concern that you are playing too fast and loose with artists interests. Consider a character like Harry Potter. There is a vast amount of "fanfic" out there which takes Rowling's intellectual property in the characters that she has created, and puts them into narratives that she never intended for them, and in some cases run contrary to the characters as she created them. But, crucially, no one has purported to publish and sell, Harry Potter and the Dominatrix' Lash. Under a current conception of copyright, such a volume would violate Rowling's copyright and she could properly seek to suppress it. Under your scheme, have put Harry Potter out into the world, the character is then free to be used by others in whatever fashion that they choose. I think that's enormously damaging.

But that does not mean that copyright should be perpetual. It is clear to me that we must incentivize people to create new ideas, but in time, those ideas must be given over to the public to use. Further, I think that most copyright holders will tell you that absolutism in the protection of their property rights is counter productive. But as much as I admire George Lucas' willingness to allow fans to create within his universe, I still believe it to be his universe, not theirs, and I still believe him to have the right to restrict that permission.