Why is the Idea of Copyright Bad?

[chessnerd]

I don't mean US copyright law, I just mean in general the idea of owning your own ideas.

In a world where private property is acknowledged, I feel like copyright laws are essential. If I make a widget, I own the widget and may do what I please with it. If I write a poem, I own that poem and may do what I please with it.

If you keep a journal, as soon as you write down your private thoughts, they belong to you. You hold the copyright on that journal. If everything you wrote didn't come with that free copyright, your journal's contents would not belong to you. The book and pages would be yours, but what you wrote would belong to the world. The public would own your thoughts. Who would keep a private journal in such a society?

I like the idea of intellectual property. It tells me that if I think of something good, I'm going to get credit and I could be rewarded, just as if I invented a good product.

And thoughts are a product. We buy books, we buy CDs, we buy art. It is true that with the advent of the Internet and computers the need to have physical media is gone. On top of that, making copies is as easy as Ctrl-C. That doesn't mean that those things are not marketable anymore, though, but it does open an interesting new door...

Thanks to the Internet and computers, people can now freely distribute works. And this can be a good thing. If I write something and want to share it, I can. In fact, with all the short, little Java programs I write, I slap the MIT License on. Why? If someone else wanted it, I'd be happy to give it to them, source-code and all.

However, I reserve all rights on the stories I write.

I'm glad I have the right to own what I think of and what I create. I'm also glad that I have the right to decline most of the copyright laws if I so choose. But I want to be able to choose, and a copyright law is the only way to provide any real choice.

I do think that the US has gone a bit too far with copyright law. The idea that it expires 70 years after the death of the creator isn't good. However, I do think, for the duration of your life at least, you should own what you make. Be that thing physical, digital, or intangible.

[earthpigg]

few people here would say that copyright in general is bad. the GNU GPL relies on copyright.

[juancarlospaco]

Closing ideas is the first step to loose them,
sharing ideas is the first step to a community,
improving, and evolution...

[k64]

I personally like the idea of copyright law. What I don't like is software propriety. Neither does anybody here.

Hardware propriety, in my personal preferences, is okay, because it is a material object. Since software is only code that goes on a hard drive, it doesn't deserve to have a proprietary backing.

[lswb]

The US and some other countries have gone _way_ too far with copyright. From the US constitution. the government has power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" The original 14 years with a possible 14 year extension is more than generous enough for this purpose. And there is certainly nothing in the constitution about setting up a welfare system for descendants of the "authors and inventors"

[chessnerd]

I personally like the idea of copyright law. What I don't like is software propriety. Neither does anybody here.

Hardware propriety, in my personal preferences, is okay, because it is a material object. Since software is only code that goes on a hard drive, it doesn't deserve to have a proprietary backing.

But what makes the software any different? Just because it is easier to copy doesn't mean that it isn't property. You can copy hardware as well, it just takes more sophisticated machines.

And I don't mind proprietary software. I don't use Linux because I want to rid myself of EULAs, I use it because I think it's better than Windows. For the same reason I use Opera over Firefox and Chrome.

[Dharmachakra]

I personally like the idea of copyright law. What I don't like is software propriety. Neither does anybody here.


I wouldn't go that far. I'm fine with software propriety. Software should be considered just as material as the hardware it works on.

[phrostbyte]

I think if you want your journal to stay private, you should um, keep it to yourself. :)

I don't support copyright law, except perhaps in limited circumstances when it's unlikely to violate the rights of individual people to use a work for any reason they want (other then restricting other people from doing what they want). The GPL is one example of copyright I support.

In general I think the "spirit" of copyright law is dead for all intents and purposes anyway. It's a dying law, despite all the people and judges paying it lip service, it hasn't done nothing to stop filesharing. It's very hard for someone to say how important copyright law is and other the other hand download the Lady Gaga song or whatever. I see stuff like that a lot. :)

[chessnerd]

In general I think the "spirit" of copyright law is dead for all intents and purposes anyway. A lot of people just seem to pay it lip service. It's very hard for someone to say how important copyright law is and other the other hand download the Lady Gaga song or whatever.

I don't illegally download music, movies, software or anything like that. In fact, I'm currently looking for a music site where everything is completely free (as in freedom and beer) so that I can legally get free (as in beer) music.

I don't want to steal others intellectual property, just as I wouldn't want my intellectual property stolen. If people want to freely distribute their music, I'd be more than happy to listen to it, just as I use free software. If people want to maintain their copyright, I'll respect that.

If anyone knows of a site like that I'd be very grateful for a link. :D

[phrostbyte]

I don't illegally download music, movies, software or anything like that. In fact, I'm currently looking for a music site where everything is completely free (as in freedom and beer) so that I can legally get free (as in beer) music.

I don't want to steal others intellectual property, just as I wouldn't want my intellectual property stolen. If people want to freely distribute their music, I'd be more than happy to listen to it, just as I use free software. If people want to maintain their copyright, I'll respect that.

If anyone knows of a site like that I'd be very grateful for a link. :D

Here is a good site for free (CC) music:
http://www.jamendo.com/en/

As I said my opinion that it's a greater right for someone to be able to do whatever they want, to share or remix a work, then it is for some copyright holder's "right" to restrict free expression and sharing. That's just my philosophy and it's based on some of the ideas you can find in my sig. I also tend to use the word "imaginary property" instead of "intellectual property". I feel it is more accurate. ;)

[phrostbyte]

And to add to that point;

Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. --Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia Founder

That could be today if copyright didn't exist. This vision almost Utopian, bringing us closer to a perfect world. But it's not some kind of far off idealistic idea, we have all the technology to make it happen right now. Just not the legal framework. :(

[yester64]

I personally like the idea of copyright law. What I don't like is software propriety. Neither does anybody here.

Hardware propriety, in my personal preferences, is okay, because it is a material object. Since software is only code that goes on a hard drive, it doesn't deserve to have a proprietary backing.

Just like to add that there is also Open Hardware
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_hardware

[mamamia88]

I don't hate the idea of propietary software. if the designer wants to keep his code secret so be it.

[chessnerd]

Here is a good site for free (CC) music:
http://www.jamendo.com/en/

Thanks.

This is definitely the best of the sites I've come across. It has a professional look, a very easy-to-use interface, a great variety of music, and a good on-site player. None of the other ones I've seen have all of that together.

I don't get why this site isn't on the first Google page for "legal free music." Most of the links on that search bring up more lists of sites and, even though I now see that Jamendo is in the list on the first link, I missed it during my initial sweep.

I guess I should have searched "creative commons music" instead, because it's the second link for that. Need to work on my Googling skills.

Thanks again.

[phrostbyte]

Thanks.

This is definitely the best of the sites I've come across. It has a professional look, a very easy-to-use interface, a great variety of music, and a good on-site player. None of the other ones I've seen have all of that together.

I don't get why this site isn't on the first Google page for "legal free music." Most of the links on that search bring up more lists of sites and, even though I now see that Jamendo is in the list on the first link, I missed it during my initial sweep.

I guess I should have searched "creative commons music" instead, because it's the second link for that. Need to work on my Googling skills.

Thanks again.

Firefox also comes with a Creative Commons search engine that specifically searches the free web.

[nrs]

Few would argue that copyright itself is bad. Though a lot (including me) would argue the way it's implemented is bad. The controversial thing in the F/OSS community is mainly software patents, not copyright.

[schauerlich]

That could be today if copyright didn't exist.

Except for the whole "not everyone can afford a computer and internet access" thing.

[Khakilang]

Copyright protect who want to earn a living by selling what he/she created. There is good and bad. Its not perfect.

[The Toxic Mite]

TURN LEFT!i! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft)

[blueshiftoverwatch]

In a world where private property is acknowledged, I feel like copyright laws are essential. If I make a widget, I own the widget and may do what I please with it. If I write a poem, I own that poem and may do what I please with it.
Intellectual property laws (whether it's copyright, copyleft, or patents) are incompatible with a logical system of private property rights. If you make a widget and you show me what the widget looks like, why can't I take that knowledge and use it to make my own widgets with my own parts? Intellectual property laws tell me that I can't make free use of the ideas that exist in my head because of some arbitrary restriction a government has decided to place on the use of those ideas.

This YouTube video explains (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrdbqfRG94I) why copyright law is not valid from a logical perspective. I forget what exact arguments he makes (I'm not re-watching it, I just had it bookmarked) but he is a fan of Ayn Rand who argues against Ayn Rand's theories on intellectual property.

Libertarian theorist (and supporter of private property) Roderick Long wrote an article called The Libertarian Cause Against Intellectual Property Rights (http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html) where he argues the same thing.

[rabidbadger]

And to continue the libertarian theme, another naysayer is the Mutualist, Kevin Carson. Carson articulates his views on IP in this piece (http://c4ss.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/intellectual-property-a-libertarian-critique.pdf), as well as his books.

Unfortunately, the arguments around IP are too complex and varied to summarise in a short post, so I'll just leave it that I am also one of those who believe that 'IP' has no logical, ethical or practical validity, and, consequently, I wish those who have recently started the Unlicense campaign (http://unlicense.org/) success in reaching out to software developers.

[Viva]

I don't think it is bad

[Xbehave]

The US and most other countries have gone _way_ too far with copyright. From the US constitution. the government has power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" The original 14 years with a possible 14 year extension is more than generous enough for this purpose. And there is certainly nothing in the constitution about setting up a welfare system for descendants of the "authors and inventors"
I agree, the idea of copyright/real patents is good, it allows people to profit from innovation/creation, that is a very good motivation to invest in R&D/content creation. The problem is that as getting revenue from creation has got quicker, copyright terms have gotten longer.

Tbh 14(+14) would be a huge step forward, but even that wouldn't reflect the fact that recouping your investment (and making a profit) is much quicker now than it was when copyright was sane, 7(+7*2?) would give companies enough time to make a profit.

tl;dr. Copyright is a great idea but poorly implemented in the US (and most/all countries)

[chessnerd]

Intellectual property laws (whether it's copyright, copyleft, or patents) are incompatible with a logical system of private property rights. If you make a widget and you show me what the widget looks like, why can't I take that knowledge and use it to make my own widgets with my own parts? Intellectual property laws tell me that I can't make free use of the ideas that exist in my head because of some arbitrary restriction a government has decided to place on the use of those ideas.

You have the right to make your own widget under normal intellectual property laws. What you don't have is the right to distribute widgets. If I wanted, I could build my own Ferrari that looked and ran just like one, but was made by me using my own materials. The only rule is that I can't sell it or give it to someone else. I could also write Harry Potter 8 as long as I don't try to distribute it to others as the next Harry Potter book. Copyright protects the right to copy and distribute ideas, not the right to make items for personal use.

As for patents, they only protect ideas for twenty years. After that time, you can go to the patent office and request to see the patents so you can make your own widget. In fact, the agreement with a patent is that for 20 years you are the only one that can make it, but after that, anyone is allowed to see and use your designs.


This YouTube video explains (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrdbqfRG94I) why copyright law is not valid from a logical perspective. I forget what exact arguments he makes (I'm not re-watching it, I just had it bookmarked) but he is a fan of Ayn Rand who argues against Ayn Rand's theories on intellectual property.

I have two issues with the vlogger's argument.

First, he says that intellectual property cannot be enforced because it implies that copyrighted works have a level of potential profit that cannot be proven to actually exist.
The problem is that it has been proven to exist. The only reason we have intellectual property laws is because it helps people make money. The point of a copyright or patent or trademark is to help people make money. Virtually all of the money that Microsoft, J. K. Rowling, Ford, etc. has is because they are the only ones allowed to distribute their ideas. It is well established that people make more money by retaining the rights on their ideas than by letting them go to the public.

Second, he says that intellectual property is like trying to say that you hold property over a part of another's mind. It is like saying that J. K. Rowling owns the part of my brain that has information about Harry Potter. I would disagree. I can tell my friend about Harry Potter without the FBI hunting me down. The only thing that I can't do is try to recreate the seven books and distribute them.
In fact, I argue that removing intellectual property would make your thoughts not belong to you. It would mean that your thoughts belong to everyone. If I have an idea I must share it. I don't have a choice because those thoughts belong, not to me, but to the community. I want the right to pick and choose what I give away and what I keep.


Libertarian theorist (and supporter of private property) Roderick Long wrote an article called The Libertarian Cause Against Intellectual Property Rights (http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html) where he argues the same thing.

When libertarians of the first sort come across a purported intellectual property right, they see one more instance of an individual's rightful claim to the product of his labor. When libertarians of the second sort come across a purported intellectual property right, they see one more instance of undeserved monopoly privilege granted by government. -The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights
While I don't see myself as a libertarian, I do see myself as the first kind of person. To think of something is a form of labor. It takes effort to think of something and you deserve the right to own what you have worked for. I take it you are of the second sort.

To enforce copyright laws and the like is to prevent people from making peaceful use of the information they possess. If you have acquired the information legitimately (say, by buying a book), then on what grounds can you be prevented from using it, reproducing it, trading it? Is this not a violation of the freedom of speech and press?
I don't see copyright as this restrictive. You are allowed to publish reviews of material. You are allowed to use it. You are allowed to talk about it. What you can't do is distribute it. As in, you can't do a public reading, listening, or viewing of something copyrighted without the permission of the copyright holder.

The spirit of copyright law is not to stop everyone from ever copying or saying anything about what is copied. It's all about making sure that, if someone has something copyrighted, they will get their proper compensation. If you want to have three friends over to your house to watch Iron Man, no one's going to press charges on you. If you sell tickets to twenty people so they can watch Iron Man, then you have a problem.

Honestly, though, all debate aside, I do agree that free ideas are better than closed ones. It's cool to be able to say that I could take a Creative Commons movie and show it to a whole arena of people with or without charging them for it as long as I gave credit to those involved (i.e. showed the credits at the end). But that was the choice of the person(s) who made it. If I want to do the same thing with one of my stories, I can. But if I want to keep those rights to myself, I can do that too.

[Frak]

What I don't like is software propriety. Neither does anybody here.

I wouldn't speak so generally about everybody.

[phrostbyte]

You have the right to make your own widget under normal intellectual property laws. What you don't have is the right to distribute widgets. If I wanted, I could build my own Ferrari that looked and ran just like one, but was made by me using my own materials. The only rule is that I can't sell it or give it to someone else. I could also write Harry Potter 8 as long as I don't try to distribute it to others as the next Harry Potter book. Copyright protects the right to copy and distribute ideas, not the right to make items for personal use.

As for patents, they only protect ideas for twenty years. After that time, you can go to the patent office and request to see the patents so you can make your own widget. In fact, the agreement with a patent is that for 20 years you are the only one that can make it, but after that, anyone is allowed to see and use your designs.



I have two issues with the vlogger's argument.

First, he says that intellectual property cannot be enforced because it implies that copyrighted works have a level of potential profit that cannot be proven to actually exist.
The problem is that it has been proven to exist. The only reason we have intellectual property laws is because it helps people make money. The point of a copyright or patent or trademark is to help people make money. Virtually all of the money that Microsoft, J. K. Rowling, Ford, etc. has is because they are the only ones allowed to distribute their ideas. It is well established that people make more money by retaining the rights on their ideas than by letting them go to the public.

Second, he says that intellectual property is like trying to say that you hold property over a part of another's mind. It is like saying that J. K. Rowling owns the part of my brain that has information about Harry Potter. I would disagree. I can tell my friend about Harry Potter without the FBI hunting me down. The only thing that I can't do is try to recreate the seven books and distribute them.
In fact, I argue that removing intellectual property would make your thoughts not belong to you. It would mean that your thoughts belong to everyone. If I have an idea I must share it. I don't have a choice because those thoughts belong, not to me, but to the community. I want the right to pick and choose what I give away and what I keep.



While I don't see myself as a libertarian, I do see myself as the first kind of person. To think of something is a form of labor. It takes effort to think of something and you deserve the right to own what you have worked for. I take it you are of the second sort.

I don't see copyright as this restrictive. You are allowed to publish reviews of material. You are allowed to use it. You are allowed to talk about it. What you can't do is distribute it. As in, you can't do a public reading, listening, or viewing of something copyrighted without the permission of the copyright holder.

The spirit of copyright law is not to stop everyone from ever copying or saying anything about what is copied. It's all about making sure that, if someone has something copyrighted, they will get their proper compensation. If you want to have three friends over to your house to watch Iron Man, no one's going to press charges on you. If you sell tickets to twenty people so they can watch Iron Man, then you have a problem.

Honestly, though, all debate aside, I do agree that free ideas are better than closed ones. It's cool to be able to say that I could take a Creative Commons movie and show it to a whole arena of people with or without charging them for it as long as I gave credit to those involved (i.e. showed the credits at the end). But that was the choice of the person(s) who made it. If I want to do the same thing with one of my stories, I can. But if I want to keep those rights to myself, I can do that too.

How do you enforce copyright law? You have to monitor people's Internet usage and in general, their private lives. You need a totalitarian/fascist government to have effective copyright enforcement (that's exactly what the pro-copyright lobby (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1371792) wants). A government based on the idea of liberty/freedom can not realistically enforce copyright law.

So you must ask yourself, do you value copyright more then living in a free society? Because you will not get both, I promise you.

[Xbehave]

How do you enforce copyright law?
Through civil cases, only under certain circumstances ( such as for profit copyright violation) should any government get involved.

You have to monitor people's Internet usage and in general, their private lives. You need a totalitarian/fascist government to have effective copyright enforcement
Sorry, as much as i dislike the proposed laws, there is a big leap from scanning internet connections for piracy to totalitarianism, throwing around that phrase everytime somebody does something you don't like really detracts from it's value.


A government based on the idea of liberty/freedom can not realistically enforce copyright law.
No government is based on the idea of liberty, liberty is anarchy, anything else is compromising some of your freedoms in order to live in a better world.


So you must ask yourself, do you value copyright more then living in a free society?
Only if your an extremist, a reasonable person can accept a compromise in which individual liberties are preserved, but some allowance is made to protect the efforts of inventors/artists.

[lisati]

My $0.02:

With freedom comes responsibility.
Responsibility presupposes the ability to respond appropriately.
Credit should be given where credit is due.

[samjh]

How do you enforce copyright law? You have to monitor people's Internet usage and in general, their private lives. You need a totalitarian/fascist government to have effective copyright enforcement (that's exactly what the pro-copyright lobby (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1371792) wants). A government based on the idea of liberty/freedom can not realistically enforce copyright law.

So you must ask yourself, do you value copyright more then living in a free society? Because you will not get both, I promise you.

I very strongly disagree with your assertion.

The problem you suggest exists for all kinds of crimes and wrongdoings. If I am mugged in a dark alley, the perpetrator may never be caught. But the crime has occurred regardless. If a person is struck by a car and left to die, the driver may never be caught, but the wrongdoing has been done. If someone breaks a contract, the wronged person may choose not to take action or may be unable to take action against the wrongdoer. If someone pirates copyrighted music, they may never be caught, but a wrong has been committed anyway.

All laws depend on two things to be effective, and no law meets both of these requirements for effectiveness completely: reporting and prosecution. In other words, if a law is broken, someone needs to report that it has been broken, then the enforcers of the law need to investigate and prosecute the law-breaker. However, it is not practical for all illegal acts to be reported, or for all illegal acts to be prosecuted successfully. Whether it be murder, assault, rape, fraud, reneging of a contractual agreement, breaking of a license, patent, copyright, etc., there are limits to their effectiveness. But the existence of those limits does not warrant total abandonment of the laws. The laws (should) exist, and the breaking of those laws are reported when possible, and prosecuted when possible.

The challenge for civilised society is to balance two sets of scales: one scale for the rights of individuals and the greater good of society, and the other scale for personal freedoms and regulation of civil order. (Take note that rights of individuals do not equate to personal freedoms, and neither does the greater good of society equal regulation of civil order.)

On the subject of intellectual property:

Everyone has a right to be compensated for their work if they so choose to receive compensation. When you work for an employer, you may demand payment for your labour. You could also work for free as a volunteer. It is up to you. Intellectual property rights is merely an extension of the right to fair compensation for labour and the exploitation of the results of the labour. The real question is not whether intellectual property rights are rights worthy of legal importance, but how to determine fair compensation and the rights and limitations of exploitation.

I agree that in some cases, the bars has been raised too high regarding compensation and exploitation. But then it is up to us to lobby our legislators (ie. those wonderful politicians) to drop the bar and make it fairer on consumers. Has anyone on here written to their political representative about this issue? I think very few, if any, would have done so.

[audiomick]

@ samjh
well said mate!

[phrostbyte]

Through civil cases, only under certain circumstances ( such as for profit copyright violation) should any government get involved.

That's not working. Copyright enforcement is fundamentally broken, and entire industries (see: record industry) are falling apart because of it. That's why they are lobbying for things like strong control of what is allowed on the Internet, or removal of due process in copyright cases. They don't see any other option and frankly I don't either.



Sorry, as much as i dislike the proposed laws, there is a big leap from scanning internet connections for piracy to totalitarianism, throwing around that phrase everytime somebody does something you don't like really detracts from it's value.

Censorship and getting involved in people's personal lives is one of the two hallmarks of totalitarianism, in my opinion.



No government is based on the idea of liberty, liberty is anarchy, anything else is compromising some of your freedoms in order to live in a better world.

Liberty is not anarchy. Liberty means personal freedom. The freedom to do something as long as it does not directly harm another person's liberty. That's not anarchy. In fact, without a functional government, it's difficult to have a liberated society.




Only if your an extremist, a reasonable person can accept a compromise in which individual liberties are preserved, but some allowance is made to protect the efforts of inventors/artists.

Well the problem is there is no individual liberties being preserved in the copyright regime. In fact, it starting to look like "corporate liberty" should take precedent over "individual liberty". There is only two solutions to this right now: to substantially limit copyright's scope, or just take the RIAA's side and eliminate most of I want find special about the Internet.

There is no realistic middle ground here. We are going one way or the other.

[phrostbyte]

I very strongly disagree with your assertion.

The problem you suggest exists for all kinds of crimes and wrongdoings. If I am mugged in a dark alley, the perpetrator may never be caught. But the crime has occurred regardless. If a person is struck by a car and left to die, the driver may never be caught, but the wrongdoing has been done. If someone breaks a contract, the wronged person may choose not to take action or may be unable to take action against the wrongdoer. If someone pirates copyrighted music, they may never be caught, but a wrong has been committed anyway.

....


Copyright violation is quite different. You can be in your own house, minding your own business, and end up violating copyright law. In fact, I would say at the point in time that's the main way copyright is violated.

Well then how do you police piracy? Well you have to monitor what people do on the Internet. Will you allow me to read your e-mail?

You also have to censor a lot of things. All those covers on YouTube? Your birthday party where everyone illegally sang the copyrighted song "Happy Birthday"? They must be taken down and eliminated from existence. Just how many memories you have actually do not belong to you? Just how much of your mind is copyrighted?

You have to shut down a lot of sites, and inadvertently kill a lot of the knowledge out there. Every time a BitTorrent site is shut down it's like an Library of Alexandra has been burned to the ground. There is sometimes millions of files containing a lot of culture, art, and knowledge on these sites. There is all kinds of stuff that could be lost forever everytime a BitTorrent site goes down. These arsonists make no attempts to preserve the knowledge contained in the things they destroy.



Everyone has a right to be compensated for their work if they so choose to receive compensation. When you work for an employer, you may demand payment for your labour. You could also work for free as a volunteer. It is up to you. Intellectual property rights is merely an extension of the right to fair compensation for labour and the exploitation of the results of the labour. The real question is not whether intellectual property rights are rights worthy of legal importance, but how to determine fair compensation and the rights and limitations of exploitation.

I agree that in some cases, the bars has been raised too high regarding compensation and exploitation. But then it is up to us to lobby our legislators (ie. those wonderful politicians) to drop the bar and make it fairer on consumers. Has anyone on here written to their political representative about this issue? I think very few, if any, would have done so.

Life is more then working or worrying about making a living. You are probably going to die in less then 20,000 days. Regardless of how much money you make, and you aren't taking any of it anywhere, if you go anywhere when you die.

So stop looking at things as purely economic. There is something bigger to accomplish then "living".

[saulgoode]

You have the right to make your own widget under normal intellectual property laws. What you don't have is the right to distribute widgets. If I wanted, I could build my own Ferrari that looked and ran just like one, but was made by me using my own materials. The only rule is that I can't sell it or give it to someone else.
Under U.S. patent law, merely making your own "Ferrari" would be prohibited if it involved implementing any of Ferrari's patents (WIPO guidelines qualify patent infringement to commercial use, but the U.S. has no such limitation).


I could also write Harry Potter 8 as long as I don't try to distribute it to others as the next Harry Potter book. Copyright protects the right to copy and distribute ideas, not the right to make items for personal use.
Again, under U.S. copyright law, you would be infringing the author's copyrights if you created either a direct copy or derived work from a Harry Potter book, even if done for personal reasons in the privacy of your home. Quoting copyright.gov (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html#infringement), "As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner." Unless there is a specific exception granted for a particular use (of which there is none covering "personal use"), making copies or derivative works is prohibited.


... The only reason we have intellectual property laws is because it helps people make money. The point of a copyright or patent or trademark is to help people make money. Virtually all of the money that Microsoft, J. K. Rowling, Ford, etc. has is because they are the only ones allowed to distribute their ideas. It is well established that people make more money by retaining the rights on their ideas than by letting them go to the public.

Particular people may "make money" under the current copyright regime, but that hardly means that money is being created; it is merely changing hands. The economy doesn't necessarily benefit because 50 billion dollars gets transferred from the bank accounts of a hundred million people to the bank account of one person -- in fact, depending upon how that one person uses that fifty billion dollars, it can be extremely detrimental to the economy.

No, what you are talking about is not the government helping people to make money, it is the government deciding that one group of people should have the right to prevent others from making money.

[Xbehave]

That's not working. Copyright enforcement is fundamentally broken, and entire industries (see: record industry) are falling apart because of it.
The laws are broken, but i don't think gaming/film/music/writing industries are falling apart because civil suits don't work they are falling apart (if they are, which is something i doubt) because they arn't offering customers a good deal.


They don't see any other option and frankly I don't either.
Your talking about industries that pull in billions, maybe if they spent a little less on lawyers and executives they'd be able to make some of that into profit.


Censorship and getting involved in people's personal lives is one of the two hallmarks of totalitarianism, in my opinion.
Cool story, but who is talking about Censorship or getting involved in peoples personal lives?


Liberty is not anarchy. Liberty means personal freedom.

Liberty: The condition of being free from control or restrictions.

The freedom to do something as long as it does not directly harm another person's liberty.
Well if you write your own definition then maybe, but liberty isn't that liberty is being able to do anything you want.


Well the problem is there is no individual liberties being preserved in the copyright regime.
I'm sorry i must have missed the part where they took away all of my freedoms.


There is only two solutions to this right now: to substantially limit copyright's scope, or just take the RIAA's side and eliminate most of I want find special about the Internet.
Again if your an extremist then perhaps, the reality is somewhat different.

Copyright could be removed completly (terrible idea)
Copyright could be realigned with it's original purpose
Copyright could be modified to allow individuals to do as they wish, while still affecting companies (Similar to Spanish law)
Copyright could stay as is.
ISPs could start working with Copyright companies to disconnect pirates without getting legal
ISPs and governments could change the rules when it comes to copyright infringes and assume guilt
We could jump to your totalitarian dream

And that list is hardly extensive, it just shows that there this isn't a black/white issue.


There is no realistic middle ground here. We are going one way or the other.
Yes there is, the realistic middle ground is what is happening in Europe, Record labels and governments can try and push stupid legislation through, but the European Courts will overturn any law that infringes important liberties pointlessly.

[k64]

Just like to add that there is also Open Hardware
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_hardware

Okay, if that's the case, why isn't Linux locked to it? That way, whatever the hardware issues there are with Linux, they will be fixed with the open source hardware movement.

[saulgoode]

The freedom to do something as long as it does not directly harm another person's liberty.

Well if you write your own definition then maybe, but liberty isn't that liberty is being able to do anything you want.

Actually, I think Phrostbyte may be using the definition given in France's 1789 "Declaration of the Rights of Man":


Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.

[phrostbyte]

The laws are broken, but i don't think gaming/film/music/writing industries are falling apart because civil suits don't work they are falling apart (if they are, which is something i doubt) because they arn't offering customers a good deal.

Your talking about industries that pull in billions, maybe if they spent a little less on lawyers and executives they'd be able to make some of that into profit.


People had no problem buying CDs 10-15 years ago. Why suddenly it's not a good deal? Well I know, because anyone can get the music for free now, suddenly $16 for an album seems outrageous. Some of these same people think $60 concert ticket is reasonable. Perhaps because there isn't all that many free concerts of popular music. :)



Cool story, but who is talking about Censorship or getting involved in peoples personal lives?

You know where I can get The Grey Album legally?



Well if you write your own definition then maybe, but liberty isn't that liberty is being able to do anything you want.

You may find that there is not one definition of liberty, even within the same dictionary. I will not lower myself to argue semantics.



I'm sorry i must have missed the part where they took away all of my freedoms.

You can thank the many tireless people fight for your rights in organizations like the EFF and FSF. You might not want to do it, but someone has to do it.



Again if your an extremist then perhaps, the reality is somewhat different.

Copyright could be removed completly (terrible idea)
Copyright could be realigned with it's original purpose
Copyright could be modified to allow individuals to do as they wish, while still affecting companies (Similar to Spanish law)
Copyright could stay as is.
ISPs could start working with Copyright companies to disconnect pirates without getting legal
ISPs and governments could change the rules when it comes to copyright infringes and assume guilt
We could jump to your totalitarian dream

And that list is hardly extensive, it just shows that there this isn't a black/white issue.

I don't find any of those to be realistic options. The creative industry needs strong copyright enforcement to survive at the strength they do. It just doesn't exist right now.




Yes there is, the realistic middle ground is what is happening in Europe, Record labels and governments can try and push stupid legislation through, but the European Courts will overturn any law that infringes important liberties pointlessly.

The middle ground doesn't seem very "stable" over there in Europe. Call me when France overturns their 3 strikes law, and when Italy stops blocking websites.

[Zoot7]

I've no problem with the idea of copyright itself, but I do have a big problem with Corporations using it to bleed money out of people all in the name of profit.

I personally like the idea of copyright law. What I don't like is software propriety. Neither does anybody here.
There's plenty propriety I like and use on a regular basis. Why? Because it works and works damn well.

[Xbehave]

People had no problem buying CDs 10-15 years ago. Why suddenly it's not a good deal?
Times change, peopel get more imformed distribution costs drop, production costs drop, the cost of getting music/films should drop accordingly.


Some of these same people think $60 concert ticket is reasonable. Perhaps because there isn't all that many free concerts of popular music. :)
Or perhaps it's because you get 4-8hrs of show for a $60 gig ticket and that $60 represents a lot of actual work (venue, security, safety, technicians, pyrotechnics/acrobatics/dancers, ticketing, transport, etc)


You know where I can get The Grey Album legally?
I can't get weed legally, does that mean drug law is censorship too?


You can thank the many tireless people fight for your rights in organizations like the EFF and FSF. You might not want to do it, but someone has to do it.
Sorry there is a lot more to life than the internets, even though both the EFF/FSF do valuable work if it were not for them i would still have my rights, it's not like any democracty country is just going to switch into a police state overnight because the RIAA wishes it so.


I don't find any of those to be realistic options.
You don't find keeping the status quo (what is happening in most european countries) to be realistic, perhaps you need a reality check.


The creative industry needs strong copyright enforcement to survive at the strength they do. It just doesn't exist right now.
I would like to see some justification of that claim, especially as
1) None of the major labels is struggling
2) Movies still usually make their money back at the box office
3) Albums usually make their production costs back in the first week
Yes they will need to adapt and maybe the large record labels have outlived their purpose, as we can get music almost directly from artists now, but the music/film/games industry isn't about to collapse when many companies are announcing record profits.


The middle ground doesn't seem very "stable" over there in Europe. Call me when France overturns their 3 strikes law, and when Italy stops blocking websites.
http://boingboing.net/2009/05/07/eu-kills-3-strikes-i.html

[Frak]

I can't get weed legally, does that mean drug law is censorship too?

I've given him many reasons why The Grey Album is ok to listen to, but not legal for them to sell. Every time, he changed topic, went back to it, and then claimed I never gave a meaningful response.

Bet he'll do the same again.

[KinKiac]

I personally wouldnt say copyright is bad per se, but it is used in bad ways. For example, a copyright and/or patent, should not be permanent. They should expire after a certain time, aloowing others to use your work to improve upon it. If your company, or music studio, movie production company, or software company, hasnt improved on a piece of IP in lets say the last 5 or 10 years, then your company has gone stagnant anyway. For example, I believe that older versions of windows should be forced to be open sourced. At this point windows 95/98/2000 should be free for anyone to use AND improve upon. Would this give away some trade secrets to MS's competitors, probably. Would that give them any advantage over MS now? I doubt it. If MS is still relying on 10 and 20 years old technology and code to run its new win7 and stay ahead of the pack, then MS is already on its way down. The same goes for any program or software, I agree it should be copyrighted and no one should be allowed to make money off of it except you, for a few years. IF after a few years you have not released a new version of that program(and thus a new copyright) then you lose it. Everyone gets it and everyone can improve upon it, something that you have either already done, or have not and probably wont. This way EVERYONE gets to benefit from your IP in the long run, but you still are ahead of the game. If someone can take your old code, improve upon it, and then build something better than your updated version, so be it. The world now has better technology because of it. AND, it forces you to have to work harder to keep any market share that you have and stay up to date and competitive. It would force you not to become lazy and stagnant.

The same could applied to drugs(we have this in Canada which is why our generic drugs come out sooner and are much more affordable than in the US, as well our health care costs for the exact same issue are less for similar reasons). You can also apply this to music and movies. After a certain amount of time the song/album/movie should not have the "same" protections as something newly released. If you are going to make money as a rockstar/movie producer/inventor/etc then your are going to have to keep "working" as such and not just sit around collecting royalty checks on something you did in your teens.

IMHO I think this would drive competition, increase innovation, and see to it that yesterdays ideas go forward to help ALL of mankind for the future. It would also help to stop companies from buying the rights to something just to keep it off the market. They could still do it, but only for a limited amount of time. They could delay competition, but not eliminate it. This in my opinion would be a heck of an improvement on what we have now. I also dont think copyright law should spill over into criminal law as it has been lately. Someone should not be able to go to jail for breaking DRM, they should just not be able to profit from it.

Anyway, that's my rant.

[yester64]

Yes there is, the realistic middle ground is what is happening in Europe, Record labels and governments can try and push stupid legislation through, but the European Courts will overturn any law that infringes important liberties pointlessly.

In europe the music industrie got a big leap. Especially in germany where the GEMA pushed fee's onto everything you buy.
Since music, film etc. can be copied or documents can be printed, the industry agreed to pay royalties for the idea. So fee's are impost to everything you can think of.
Printers, Cd-Writers etc.. of course it will be eventually past to the consumer.
It is illegal to make copies of movies or music over there.
The question becomes then what kind of right do you have as a consumer. For the industry it is clear. If the DVD or the CD does not work, you have to rebuy it.
And CD's and DVD's do not last a long time since they integrate over time.
In my opinion it is a money making machine and still the industry is crying about losses.

Btw. the problem is not license, but patents.
Someone developed at one point how the cursor behaves and licensed it. So what happens next is, that if another company uses it, it can be sued over infringements. This happened and happens all the time.
Take DRM, since some companies hold the license and patents on it, there is no way that the opens source community will get it for use. Unless of course someone pays for it.
But the question is, which kinda of software should be free to all and a common good rather then a individual good.
It is not about stealing or freeloading, but in how content (in the case of movies or music) can be shared abroad all OS's.
Anyone who writes software for open source is still a license holder, but he shares the source to everyone who likes to see it.

Or think about bio research.
A doctor discovers a new treatment which he developed while working in a university. So the research was essentially done by the taxpayer. He takes the intellectual property and form a own company which markets the treatment.
Should it be common good or individual good?

Licensing is a broader thing that is not just limited to software and it matters to everyone and one should think how society can benefit.
Linus Torvald did not make any money from the kernel. If we beliefe in the Microsoft way he should have.

[chillicampari]

KinKiac, I agree it can be used in bad ways (look at Disney and how they tried to sue schools) *but* let's say I'm a small to medium independent filmmaker who is releasing under myself (or going with a smaller distributor). I release my film on DVD and in 5 years or so a new format comes around, like Blu-Ray. Should I lose my rights to re-release in the new format or under the distributor I'd like to partner with for that film because I haven't made any "improvements" or changes to the original film? That seems really open for misuse. Like a major could just swoop on in and take it, make any changes (like adding in product placement or changing the story if they wanted) and release because they can.

[yester64]

Okay, if that's the case, why isn't Linux locked to it? That way, whatever the hardware issues there are with Linux, they will be fixed with the open source hardware movement.

There was an article a while ago in Wired about it.

http://www.openhardware.net/
http://www.linuxfund.org/projects/ogd1/

I find the idea very appealing.

[BuffaloX]

No, what you are talking about is not the government helping people to make money, it is the government deciding that one group of people should have the right to prevent others from making money.

This pretty much nails what Copyright is all about.




So you must ask yourself, do you value copyright more then living in a free society? Because you will not get both, I promise you.

I agree with a lot you're saying, but one question I can't quite figure out is, how movies like Avatar would be made, if we don't have copyright.
I would like to still be able to watch a good movie, and read a good book.

To me it seems the ideal would be just enough copyrights to allow such projects to be financially feasible. Maybe 5 years copyright, and private sharing legal?

I think this would actually stimulate creativity, since new stuff needs to be created, to keep revenues coming in.

[Xbehave]

but one question I can't quite figure out is, how movies like Avatar would be made, if we don't have copyright.
I would like to still be able to watch a good movie, and read a good book.
Thats the point of copyright, the concept is good even if the laws are bad.


A doctor discovers a new treatment which he developed while working in a university. So the research was essentially done by the taxpayer. He takes the intellectual property and form a own company which markets the treatment.
But take the other side, why should drug company A invest in R&D if brug company B will just clone all the drugs as soon as A gets them to the market. A needs some sort of protection.

[KinKiac]

KinKiac, I agree it can be used in bad ways (look at Disney and how they tried to sue schools) *but* let's say I'm a small to medium independent filmmaker who is releasing under myself (or going with a smaller distributor). I release my film on DVD and in 5 years or so a new format comes around, like Blu-Ray. Should I lose my rights to re-release in the new format or under the distributor I'd like to partner with for that film because I haven't made any "improvements" or changes to the original film? That seems really open for misuse. Like a major could just swoop on in and take it, make any changes (like adding in product placement or changing the story if they wanted) and release because they can.

Yes, I agree. Which is why copyright laws need changing and not doing away with. With regards to your example I think that, as it applies to film anyway, that the original rights holder should have the rights to re-release under a new format such as in your example. It is situations like this that call for specific rules to be in place and they should not apply in the same way to all things, however I still dont think it should be permanent. Movies and music could get a little icky there, which is why it would make sense for them to have a longer grace period, say along the lines of 10-20 years, but in the end, the copyright/patent should at some point expire. I think shorter periods should apply to tech and software though, as those industries change so fast that anything 5-10 years old is old is an antique anyway.

Also, another thing to note is that just because the copyright expires, doesnt necessarily mean it has to go away. What I mean is, what if music, when the copyright ran out, rather than the rights holder losing rights altogether, but rather only retained rights to make money off it, meaning only they could make money off it but as far as file sharing and copying and making stuff available for free, that should be allowed and governed under fair use laws. There needs to be distinction between private and commercial use.

If a company wants to use your work commercially, then yeah I think they should retain those rights for longer periods of time. But, after say a period of 5-10 years, a person who is downloading off of Kazaa or bit torrent, or whatever, should not be able to be sued by the rights holder IF they are not making any money off of it. Within the first 5-10 years of an albums/game's/movie's release sure, you upload, you are fair game for the RIAA et al. However, if I am sharing my Beatles songs from 20-30 years ago, I should not be able to be sued for $150,000 per track. Thats just ridiculous.

Compound that with the fact that a legal battle is a war of money as much as it is a war of words and you can see where I take issue. For an individual living paycheck to paycheck, going up against something like the RIAA with a comparatively limitless supply of money to throw at lawyers, they dont have a chance. Not because they dont have a case, which they may or may not, but because they WILL be forced to settle eventually due to limited time and finances. That is not justice in any way shape or form.

This is where patents like Apple's muli-touch patents become a huge problem. There is a number of things in their patent that probably would not hold up in court, which is why I think they havent tried going after Palm over the Pre. However, for another company that maybe doesnt have the money to spend on lawyers, they wont even go there just to avoid getting sued. Because they dont have enough money to even question Apple's patent. This deprives all consumers of products similar, but better than Apple's iPhone, especially ones coming from smaller companies. The next RIM might not even get started due to patents such as this one. It does nothing more than allow Apple to not have to improve much on their current design to stay competitive, because anything that would be competitive, would infringe upon its patent and never be allowed to exist.

Another example of this is the case between Garmin and MS. At this point in the game MS should have no right to go after a company like Garmin over FAT32 specs.

[phrostbyte]

I agree with a lot you're saying, but one question I can't quite figure out is, how movies like Avatar would be made, if we don't have copyright.
I would like to still be able to watch a good movie, and read a good book.

To me it seems the ideal would be just enough copyrights to allow such projects to be financially feasible. Maybe 5 years copyright, and private sharing legal?

Maybe a reasonable copyright period. (But regardless people will not respect it.)

Or maybe government grants, like science gets now.

Regardless, the Internet has had a negitive effect on centralized media. Weither it be newspapers, music, TV, etc. The movie industry is doing well, but that's because of their box office business model (which is a way resembles a "concert").

[phrostbyte]

I've given him many reasons why The Grey Album is ok to listen to, but not legal for them to sell. Every time, he changed topic, went back to it, and then claimed I never gave a meaningful response.

Bet he'll do the same again.

Frak,

You aren't a judge, you have no ability to say what is legal or not in any authoritative manner. I don't think EMI agrees with you anyway, and they have been hard at work censoring the album.

[Xbehave]

Like a major could just swoop on in and take it,
I'd go with 7 years (+7*2 if you still haven't recouped your investment), because if you haven't made money on it in the first 7 (or 21) years then your unlikely to ever make money off it, if a major swoops in after 7 years, they arn't taking away your money but making their own (just like every pirated copy isn't a lost sale). BTW you always have the right to keep re-releasing out of copyright material so you can always cash-in on a format change.

[Xbehave]

I don't think EMI agrees with you anyway, and they have been hard at work censoring the album.
Stopping copyright violation != censorship.

[thatguruguy]

Maybe a reasonable copyright period. (But regardless people will not respect it.)

I'm not clear on your argument, really. Are you saying that people should or should not respect copyright law?


Or maybe government grants, like science gets now.

So, you're arguing that the government should get to decide which movies should be made? Really?


Regardless, the Internet has had a negitive effect on centralized media. Weither it be newspapers, music, TV, etc. The movie industry is doing well, but that's because of their box office business model (which is a way resembles a "concert").

Movies are still considered a destination. It's reflected in the way that people say that they are "going to the movies." It's an event that is participated in, and people pay for that right to participate. Do you think the answer is to have everything on the internet pay-for-play?

[pastalavista]

The entire concept of ownership is an illusion. The closest we come to owning anything is our own naked body but it is as easily taken or given away as anything else. It was the love for possession (greed) which fostered the hoax of ownership in the first place and we have all heard the horror stories about "the root of all evil".

Your thoughts, or more selfishly, your "intellecual property" only "belong" to you until you express them to at least one other sentient being. If someone wishes to pay you for them, then more power to you. If you demand payment, however, you are a needy, greedy leech.

[yester64]

The entire concept of ownership is an illusion. The closest we come to owning anything is our own naked bodies but it is as easily taken or given as anything else. It was the love of possession (greed) which fostered the hoax of ownership in the first place and we have all heard the horror stories about "the root of all evil".

Your thoughts, or more selfishly, your "intellecual property" only "belong" to you until you express them to at least one other sentient being. If someone wishes to pay you for them, then more power to you. If you demand payment, however, you are a needy, greedy leech.

Not even that. Who owns your body once your death?

I waived my ownership of my organs, except my skin. So i will share my body with who ever needs it once i am death. So in a sense i am shareware.

[phrostbyte]

Also, another thing to note is that just because the copyright expires, doesnt necessarily mean it has to go away. What I mean is, what if music, when the copyright ran out, rather than the rights holder losing rights altogether, but rather only retained rights to make money off it, meaning only they could make money off it but as far as file sharing and copying and making stuff available for free, that should be allowed and governed under fair use laws. There needs to be distinction between private and commercial use.

That's pretty reasonable. If we can make copyright and industrial regulation (as it is suppose to be), most of the tyranny associated it will go away. If copyright should apply to anyone, it should not apply to non-commercial use by individuals.

A copyright system like this would be reasonable:


In order for software to qualify for copyright, the source code must be put into escrow with the copyright office, OR the source code be made publicly available on release. The source code is released by the copyright office when the software is out of copyright.
Copyright covers the right of (1) copying; (2) commercial derivative use and performance. Under no circumstances may a copyright holder assert additional rights then these (sorry EULAs).
All non-commercial transformative or derivative use of copyrighted works should be legal from day one. That means mashups, remixes, and fanfic is explicitly legal.
Non-commercial performance rights of music from day one. That means singing a song in a home video could never result in a copyright infringement.
DRM systems are illegal unless their algorithm is registered by the copyright office. The copyright office may use the DRM algorithm to decode works which copyright has lapsed.
Some kind of anti-SLAPP law that punishes companies who overuse copyright takedown notices against individuals.
Copyright law becomes an entirely civil law, even for commercial copyright infringement. This is similar to patent law in most countries. Under no circumstances may the government investigate or prosecute a copyright case. That is the responsibility of the plaintiff which owns the copyright.
Absolutely no mass surveillance to enforce copyright law. ISPs have safe harbor from copyright infringement by it's users.
Full due process in copyright investigations. The only way to peruse a copyright compliant is through the civil court.
The amount of money an author makes from a work is separated on his tax return. The money made from a copyrighted work in the first five years is first considered. If the author makes less then half that amount in the next five years, the copyright loses five years duration.
An author who does not sell his work at all for a one year duration, that work automatically goes into the public domain.
Copyright can last no longer then 30 years.


Although I think eventually copyright itself will become obsolete as a whole, this system would be a reasonable compromise today. In my opinion of course.

[phrostbyte]

So, you're arguing that the government should get to decide which movies should be made? Really?

The government funding movies is not without precedent (see: National Endowment for the Arts).

[phrostbyte]

I'm not clear on your argument, really. Are you saying that people should or should not respect copyright law?

I don't think it matters either way. I think people disrespect copyright law on a massive scale already, and it's mostly the younger generation so they won't exactly die out the next decade.

[Frak]

Stopping copyright violation != censorship.
In the voice of Turk from Scrubs:

Ya see what I'm talkin about?

[phrostbyte]

Stopping copyright violation != censorship.

It's not censorship, it's "protecting the youth".
It's not censorship, it's "combating counterrevolutionaries".
It's not censorship, it's "protecting the harmony of society" (China's excuse).

You can sugar coat it anyway you want, it's still censorship.

[BuffaloX]

Wow 30 years, that's much too long IMO.

I say 5 years, if the investment hasn't returned a reasonable profit an extension up to another 5 years can be applied for.

After 10 years if it hasn't returned a profit, the copyright is not worth bothering the legal system to uphold.

[phrostbyte]

Wow 30 years, that's much too long IMO.

I say 5 years, if the investment hasn't returned a reasonable profit an extension up to another 5 years can be applied for.

After 10 years if it hasn't returned a profit, the copyright is not worth bothering the legal system to uphold.

It's really not too long when you considered the current duration can be 95 years (or longer).

Well I was considering the opposite regarding the duration philosophy. If after 5 years it didn't turn a profit, the copyright duration would actually start to decrease. :D I figure this makes some economic sense, since it incentives the author to try to actively make money from his work. And that's why copyright is supposedly about, right? :P

[thatguruguy]

The entire concept of ownership is an illusion. The closest we come to owning anything is our own naked body but it is as easily taken or given away as anything else. It was the love for possession (greed) which fostered the hoax of ownership in the first place and we have all heard the horror stories about "the root of all evil".

Your thoughts, or more selfishly, your "intellecual property" only "belong" to you until you express them to at least one other sentient being. If someone wishes to pay you for them, then more power to you. If you demand payment, however, you are a needy, greedy leech.

If I give a ride to someone in my car, it is still my car. The fact that he has benefited from my ownership of my car does not decrease my ownership.

It should be noted (at least here in the U.S.) that Thomas Jefferson himself helped create the U.S. Patent Office. He did that because he finally came to realize that granting "ownership" of intellectual property fosters discovery and development. I understand the feelings of many members here that development moves forward when a "community" gets to look at what is invented, and has a chance to "improve" upon it. It should be noted, though, that development of any particular project is done by a small group of individuals. And nothing motivates a small group quite like the idea that they can make money at what they are developing. Not because they are greedy, but because they want to be able to afford to eat.

[phrostbyte]

Of all the things we could fight about copyright law, the duration is probably the hardest. Since a lot of that is codified in the Berne convention. The easiest approach is to expand fair use IMO. And introduce anti-SLAPP style laws that makes wanton enforcement of copyright risky. I'd like to see anti-SLAPP style laws for patents and trademarks too. That I feel would be the first possible step, the easiest way to break in.

But anyway we are fighting a very hard legal battle. It might take decades for progress largely when the older generation has died out. People who grew up with Web 2.0 and FOSS, and BitTorrent too, I think they will eventually start fighting for this politically. It's already happening in Europe.

[BuffaloX]

It's really not too long when you considered the current duration can be 95 years (or longer).

Well I was considering the opposite regarding the duration philosophy. If after 5 years it didn't turn a profit, the copyright duration would actually start to decrease. :D I figure this makes some economic sense, since it incentives the author to try to actively make money from his work. And that's why copyright is supposedly about, right? :P

Yeah but I think it would create all sorts of creative book keeping, but any option to extend based on finance, would probably do that.

[thatguruguy]

Of all the things we could fight about copyright law, the duration is probably the hardest. Since a lot of that is codified in the Berne convention. The easiest approach is to expand fair use IMO. And introduce anti-SLAPP style laws that makes wanton enforcement of copyright risky. I'd like to see anti-SLAPP style laws for patents and trademarks too. That I feel would be the first possible step. But anyway we are fighting a very hard legal battle. It might take decades for progress, largely when the older generation has died out.

Because members of the younger generation don't have to eat, and therefore have no interest in protecting intellectual property rights.

[phrostbyte]

Not because they are greedy, but because they want to be able to afford to eat.

But what if everyone could afford to eat? :) The world is changing, food isn't as scarce as it was 200 years ago either!

We have something called a welfare state in most of the developed world. There is always food available regardless of your income.

[thatguruguy]

But what if everyone could afford to eat? :) The world is changing, food isn't as scarce as it was 200 years ago either!

That depends entirely upon where you are. Moreover, given climate change and population growth, we may be in for a few rude surprises by the time the "older generation has died out."

[thatguruguy]

We have something called a welfare state in most of the developed world. There is always food available regardless of your income.

Wow. Just wow. Are you now arguing that EVERYONE should live at a subsistence level? And if NO ONE makes money, who pays for the welfare state?

[phrostbyte]

That depends entirely upon where you are. Moreover, given climate change and population growth, we may be in for a few rude surprises by the time the "older generation has died out."

Well that has nothing to do with copyright. Copyright doesn't magically make food available.

That is farmers, and last time I checked Tomatos aren't protected by copyright (although these days, you can never be sure).

So if people are going to starve and there will be an Armageddon or whatever is being sold as "the future" today, it's going to happen with or without copyright.

[phrostbyte]

Wow. Just wow. Are you now arguing that EVERYONE should live at a subsistence level? And if NO ONE makes money, who pays for the welfare state?

Money is an illusion. It's only what material things it is traded for that is real. If there is suddenly no food available, all the money in the world isn't going to automatically fix that. Certainly not copyright.

The Roman Empire was in many ways a welfare state, for Roman citizens though. You could basically do nothing all day, because the slaves took care of eveything.

Now replace slaves with "robots", and you have the same situation except without the oppression of human beings. :)

Technology could lead to a society where no one really has to work for a living.

[thatguruguy]

Well that has nothing to do with copyright. Copyright doesn't magically make food available.

That is farmers, and last time I checked Tomatos aren't protected by copyright (although these days, you can never be sure).

So if people are going to starve and there will be an Armageddon or whatever is being sold as "the future" today, it's going to happen with or without copyright.

Actually, a LOT of food today is grown due to patented materials, whether it is in the fertilizer or in the genetically modified food stuffs. And the trend in that is for MORE of that going on, rather than less, due to the increased strain on our agricultural infrastructure as demand constantly increases and the amount of arable land either stays the same or decreases. Again, it is the profit motive that encourages companies to invest in trying to find ways to increase food production.

[thatguruguy]

Money is an illusion. It's only what material things it is traded for that is real. If there is suddenly no food available, all the money in the world isn't going to automatically fix that. Certainly not copyright.

The Roman Empire was in many ways a welfare state, for Roman citizens though. You could basically do nothing all day, because the slaves took care of eveything.

Now replace slaves with "robots", and you have the same situation except without the oppression of human beings. (retarded smiley thingy)

Technology could lead to a society where no one really has to work for a living.

Robots? SRLSY? Maybe aliens will come save us!

[phrostbyte]

Actually, a LOT of food today is grown due to patented materials, whether it is in the fertilizer or in the genetically modified food stuffs. And the trend in that is for MORE of that going on, rather than less, due to the increased strain on our agricultural infrastructure as demand constantly increases and the amount of arable land either stays the same or decreases. Again, it is the profit motive that encourages companies to invest in trying to find ways to increase food production.

I don't disagree but profit motive can be had with other methods, for instance government funding.

Speaking of scarcity, copyright/patents actually creates an artificial scarcity. It's like burning downing livable houses for profit. So in a way, IP reduces net wealth in a society.

Everyone could be rich intellectually speaking of copyright didn't exist, because everyone could have access to all things which can be easily copied. It's like having your own replicator technology for all the world's knowledge and art. I think modern technology is amazing really. Too bad we aren't legally allowed to use it.

[phrostbyte]

Robots? SRLSY? Maybe aliens will come save us!

You'd be surprised how many things you own today are made almost entirely by machines. Read up on the Luddites and their beef. :)

[whiskeylover]

This post was written by my pet robot.

[thatguruguy]

I don't disagree but profit motive can be had with other methods, for instance government funding.

Speaking of scarcity, copyright/patents actually creates an artificial scarcity. It's like burning downing livable houses for profit. So in a way, IP reduces net wealth in a society.

Everyone could be rich intellectually speaking of copyright didn't exist, because everyone could have access to all things which can be easily copied. It's like having your own replicator technology for all the world's knowledge and art. I think modern technology is amazing really. Too bad we aren't legally allowed to use it.

People have access. All they have to do is go buy stuff. Then, they can use it however they wish.

BTW, you realize that "replicators" are science fiction, right?

[thatguruguy]

You'd be surprised how many things you own today are made almost entirely by machines. Read up on the Luddites and their beef. :)

I seriously doubt that you know more about Luddites, the industrial revolution, or modern manufacturing than I do.

[thatguruguy]

This post was written by my pet robot.

This post was written while drinking whiskey.

[phrostbyte]

People have access. All they have to do is go buy stuff. Then, they can use it however they wish.

BTW, you realize that "replicators" are science fiction, right?

Can you please go buy me 2,000,000 songs on iTunes then? I mean, theoretically, a person can have 2,000,000 songs on their computer even if they don't have $2 million dollars. That's a bit strange don't you think? Computers seemly make anyone into a virtual millionare.

Replicators are science fiction? Well I'll tell you I'm sitting in front a device which can make an perfect replica of any movie, music, book, or whatever have you. I must be living in the distant future or something. Hello primitive beings! :P

[thatguruguy]

Can you please go buy me 2,000,000 songs on iTunes then? I mean, theoretically, a person can have 2,000,000 songs on their computer even if they don't have $2 million dollars. That's a bit strange don't you think?

Sure, if they steal them. But look, I agree. Artists should not ever be paid for their work. They should just give their work away. As should everyone else. And the "government" can pay for everything!


Replicators are science fiction? Well I'll tell you I'm sitting in front a device which can make an perfect replica of any movie, music, book, or whatever have you. I must be living in the distant future or something. Hello primitive beings! :P

Fine. Replicate yourself a nice house to live in. That would be just keen!

[phrostbyte]

Sure, if they steal them. But look, I agree. Artists should not ever be paid for their work. They should just give their work away. As should everyone else. And the "government" can pay for everything!

I'm glad we see eye to eye.

Do you know what's interesting though? You don't have to have a scarcity. Everyone in the world could have 2,000,000 songs on their computer (or more). And if every single person in the world paid something like $20 dollars a year for that music, the music industry would be richer then it is today (with revenues at ~$13-14 bn dollars). True story.

Try doing that with tomatoes.

What is that thing that (almost) everyone pays? ;)



Fine. Replicate yourself a nice house to live in. That would be just keen!

One day...

[chillicampari]

Well I'm gonna have my whisky drinking robot pet replicate me a pizza, since I'm working late on invisible intellectual property while I still can before it must be turned over to the community overlords for the benefit of humankind, and I'm sort of hungry.

[thatguruguy]

Well I'm gonna have my whisky drinking robot pet replicate me a pizza, since I'm working late on invisible intellectual property while I still can before it must be turned over to the community overlords for the benefit of humankind, and I'm sort of hungry.

I hope you're not getting paid for your work, since that would clearly be immoral.

[pastalavista]

If I give a ride to someone in my car, it is still my car. The fact that he has benefited from my ownership of my car does not decrease my ownership.

It should be noted (at least here in the U.S.) that Thomas Jefferson himself helped create the U.S. Patent Office. He did that because he finally came to realize that granting "ownership" of intellectual property fosters discovery and development. I understand the feelings of many members here that development moves forward when a "community" gets to look at what is invented, and has a chance to "improve" upon it. It should be noted, though, that development of any particular project is done by a small group of individuals. And nothing motivates a small group quite like the idea that they can make money at what they are developing. Not because they are greedy, but because they want to be able to afford to eat.

The hording of food by those who don't need it is the only reason any person can't afford to eat. To hold a person's survival hostage to their contribution to a consortium of food mongers for their own excessive enrichment is not my idea of a free society. We've come too far for people to still need to worry about their own survival. Greed is now considered harmless ambition. Our society is just f***ed-up.

[phrostbyte]

Well I'm gonna have my whisky drinking robot pet replicate me a pizza, since I'm working late on invisible intellectual property while I still can before it must be turned over to the community overlords for the benefit of humankind, and I'm sort of hungry.

Well if you have an replicator robot that make you everything, why don't you ask it to finish your "invisible intellectual property" for you?

[thatguruguy]

I'm glad we see eye to eye.

Do you know what's interesting though? You don't have to have a scarcity. Everyone in the world could have 2,000,000 songs on their computer (or more). And if every single person in the world paid something like $20 dollars a year for that music, the music industry would be richer then it is today (with revenues at ~$13-14 bn dollars). True story.

Try doing that with tomatoes.

What is that thing that (almost) everyone pays? ;)



One day...

Not everyone in the world WANTS 2,000,000 songs on their computer. Should every man, woman and child be forced to pay for the songs whether they want them or not, simply because YOU want them?

[phrostbyte]

I hope you're not getting paid for your work, since that would clearly be immoral.

Are you just wired to think of this in terms of "hard work" and the benefit from that?

I see this a lot, when describing a society where no one must work at all, the whole idea simply does not register with most people. It's quite weird.

[thatguruguy]

The hording of food by those who don't need it is the only reason any person can't afford to eat.

You are quite simply and entirely wrong. It costs money to grow, transport and store food.

[thatguruguy]

Are you just wired to think of this in terms of "hard work" and the benefit from that?

I see this a lot, when describing a society where no one must work at all, the whole idea simply does not register with most people. It's quite weird.

Since everything you just typed was nonsensical, please elucidate.

[phrostbyte]

Not everyone in the world WANTS 2,000,000 songs on their computer. Should every man, woman and child be forced to pay for the songs whether they want them or not, simply because YOU want them?

Because this is how the world works. Sometimes if we pool resources together, everyone benefits. I mean, it's called taxes.

[thatguruguy]

Because this is how the world works. Sometimes if we pool resources together, everyone benefits. I mean, it's called taxes.

Taxes are intended to pay for public works, not private benefit.

[chillicampari]

I hope you're not getting paid for your work, since that would clearly be immoral.

Heh-heh! Maybe a little bit, not sure yet. I should probably go self-flagellate just in case.


Are you just wired to think of this in terms of "hard work" and the benefit from that?

I see this a lot, when describing a society where no one must work at all, the whole idea simply does not register with most people. It's quite weird.

So... what I'm taking a break from right now to reply isn't work? Whew! I'm so relieved there is someone on the internet to define what is work and what is frivolity!


Well if you have an replicator robot that make you everything, why don't you ask it to finish your "invisible intellectual property" for you?

The brain extraction module isn't ready yet.

[JDShu]

Taxes are intended to pay for public works, not private benefit.

He said:


Because this is how the world works. Sometimes if we pool resources together, everyone benefits. I mean, it's called taxes.

No conflict there. Public works is public benefit.

[phrostbyte]

Taxes are intended to pay for public works, not private benefit.

Listen if you are going to argue that the government shouldn't fund music, movies, software either directly or indirectly, you lost that war DECADES ago. There isn't a major political party anywhere that I am aware of that is interested in reversing this trend of government involvement in the arts and sciences. At least the Pirate Party has some EU parliament seats.

[pastalavista]

You are quite simply and entirely wrong. It costs money to grow, transport and store food.You are the one who is simply and entirely wrong. They were growing, transporting and storing food long before money was ever invented. I will concede, it takes time, effort and materials, and that is the actual cost of the food. A man's hard labor is of less value than his master's comfort. A man's idea is only worth what somebody makes of it. The master didn't grow the food, his servant did. They say possession is 9/10 of the law but they're just making excuses.

[Warpnow]

When in states of perfect competition, firms are price taking, and efficiency is maximized to the greatest extent possibly purely because inefficient businesses fail out quickly. Low prices for the consumer, high efficiency for the economy...sounds pretty ideal, right?

Then the argument comes in that if profits are small (small profits are part of the DEFINITION of competition in microeconomic terms), you disincentivize innovation.

Of course, this is ********. What you do is you disincentivize certain types of innovation. You can still make alot of profit with innovation. Perfect competition makes survival difficult, and so even the tiniest innovation is required to keep businesses afloat.

However, when the company innovates, without copyright, other companies will immediately take over the innovation and use it, thereby causing the company to actually lose from its innovation, because it put money and resources into it, and is still on the same ground as every other company. That's the best argument for copyright law.

However, copyright grows like a weed to where it actually begins to be self-defeating. As it becomes stronger and stronger, companies are able to copyright certain things and prevent competition at all, controlling an effective monopoly. Differentiate your product, and suddenly, you have a self-created monopoly. Suddenly there is literally no incentive for the company to be efficient, because they have a mini-monopoly. Why spend money innovating when they can use advertising to convince people they aren't buying tissues, they're buuying cleanex, and there is no similar product?

Copyright law in excess breeds massive inefficiency. We see this alot right now, in my opinion.

[Warpnow]

You are quite simply and entirely wrong. It costs money to grow, transport and store food.

Not necessarily. Money is simply a barter system. It requires resources to carry out any given task, you can, however, do many things without the barter system, you simply lose alot of efficiency.

Markets only appear free because the people using them do not understand the ways in which they are, and always have been, slowly manipulated into making decisions for the better good of the economy. "Market Forces" are often harnesses, controlled, and altered by the government, and by individuals. The "freedom" of the market is just a political catch phrase. The Market is not "free", and never has been. Its always regulated, and both democrats and republicans want regulation- they just want different kinds of regulation.

[murderslastcrow]

Patents and copyrights are two different things. I think patents show the much darker side of this intellectual property business. Disallowing people to use their ideas if they have the same one, in essence, rather than relying on competitive behavior.

I guess patenting nuclear weapons might be helpful since it would stifle innovation. XD But really, copyright is a good thing. If you want to share, you can. You cannot and should not be FORCED to share.

[thatguruguy]

Not necessarily. Money is simply a barter system. It requires resources to carry out any given task, you can, however, do many things without the barter system, you simply lose alot of efficiency. .

You lost me right there. Money is the opposite of the barter system.

[thatguruguy]

Then the argument comes in that if profits are small (small profits are part of the DEFINITION of competition in microeconomic terms), you disincentivize innovation.


According to whom? Moreover, are you talking about actuarial profit, or economic profit? Or are you just (as I assume) making stuff up?

[thatguruguy]

You are the one who is simply and entirely wrong. They were growing, transporting and storing food long before money was ever invented.

When was this, exactly? Money has been around for thousands of years; it is as old as civilization. Please do some research and stop making stuff up.

[Xbehave]

Money is just an intermediate form of battering, there is nothing bad about money, it sure beats trying to setup 3+ way deals because your skill isn't what the plumber is looking for.

[pastalavista]

When was this, exactly? Money has been around for thousands of years; it is as old as civilization. Please do some research and stop making stuff up.
You're certainly right again (even though, not actually), They couldn't possibly have managed growing food, transporting it, and storing it without the money required by civilization. I mean, before civilization and money, society was all just ignorant, savages.

[forrestcupp]

Let's tell the world that we're going to switch back to a real bartering system and see how well that works out. Or we can leave the world economy how it is and only those of us who don't think money matters can gather together and barter all by ourselves. Maybe that would work.

It doesn't matter what worked for the world thousands of years ago; what matters is what is working for the world right now. And what works for the world right now is that you can't just volunteer all of your time hard work for nothing and expect to live.

I have created free software before with a way for people to donate. I didn't get a dime. That doesn't bother me, but it's a good thing that wasn't my means of income. I'm not against FOSS, but I understand why people like to get paid for their hard work, too.

[ve3tru]

Maybe you hadn't been following whats going on with youtube,
they are under attack. Did you know happy birthday is copyrighted.? Your 5 year old can be charged with coppyright infringement for singing it. They are already removing children birthday party's from you tube.
Youtube was only possible because they got around the coedic's copyright.
It destroys innovation and only supports the monopolies that horde them.

[spiderbatdad]

The biggest problem I have with proprietary software is, for the most part, the coders stand on the shoulders of many open source giants. I also have trouble with the concept of selling something and still retaining ownership. They can call it a license to use if they want, but that's BS. Unfortunately masses of people fall for it, either because they didn't fully understand at the time of purchase...or worse yet, they are ruled by instantaneous gratification, and "lease" whatever shiny new object rears its head.

[Warpnow]

When was this, exactly? Money has been around for thousands of years; it is as old as civilization. Please do some research and stop making stuff up.

Firstly, Money is a barter system, where you trade money for the things you want. You can always build the things you want, or in the terms of service industries, do them yourself.

And, I am most certainly not making things up. Competition is defined economically in several ways, as it requires firms to have easy entry into the market (with low barriers), it requires firms to be price taking, so they have little to no control over price, and that profits to be small (many firms competing to sell the same item).

Pick up any microeconomics text book from your local used bookstore and maybe you'll actually know what you're talking about.

[Xbehave]

Maybe you hadn't been following whats going on with youtube,
they are under attack. Did you know happy birthday is copyrighted.? Your 5 year old can be charged with coppyright infringement for singing it. They are already removing children birthday party's from you tube.
Youtube was only possible because they got around the coedic's copyright.
It destroys innovation and only supports the monopolies that horde them.
The fact US copyright law is retarded, doesn't make copyright a bad idea.


The biggest problem I have with proprietary software is, for the most part, the coders stand on the shoulders of many open source giants.
There are many libraries that can be used in closed source software (some for free), developing closed source software doesn't mean starting from scratch, it just means the users can't improve it.


I also have trouble with the concept of selling something and still retaining ownership
Loans and renting must blow your mind then.


Unfortunately masses of people fall for it, either because they didn't fully understand at the time of purchase
Actually to most users, the ability to use software and the ability to use software and view/edit the source code are the same, saying they "fall for it" is unfair.

[phrostbyte]

Let's tell the world that we're going to switch back to a real bartering system and see how well that works out. Or we can leave the world economy how it is and only those of us who don't think money matters can gather together and barter all by ourselves. Maybe that would work.

It doesn't matter what worked for the world thousands of years ago; what matters is what is working for the world right now. And what works for the world right now is that you can't just volunteer all of your time hard work for nothing and expect to live.

I have created free software before with a way for people to donate. I didn't get a dime. That doesn't bother me, but it's a good thing that wasn't my means of income. I'm not against FOSS, but I understand why people like to get paid for their hard work, too.

You know there is piles upon piles of government money being sent to Universities every year? My government funded college education and salary must be some kind of weird illusion. I have no idea why people keep acting like it's impossible to make money writing software without a copyright law.

Before copyright existed, that's exactly how authors made money, through sponsorship from aristocrats (ie. the government). We are moving more and more back into that system.

[whiskeylover]

You know there is piles upon piles of government money being sent to Universities every year? My government funded college education and salary must be some kind of weird illusion. I have no idea why people keep acting like it's impossible to make money writing software without a copyright law.


Good luck with being in school for the rest of your life.

[phrostbyte]

Good luck with being in school for the rest of your life.

Plenty of people are. They are called professors.

But thank you, that is my intention.

[whiskeylover]

Lets all be professors.

[phrostbyte]

Lets all be professors.

Sounds like a good idea. Ever since the recession, there has been a lot more government money being put into the arts and sciences. Hence there are even more academic positions open then usual.

At some point I do think "professor" will end being a very common profession.

[ElSlunko]

Depends on the project.

[doas777]

well, anyone that talks about copyright, is talking about how to get paid for a job, not about the artifact. thats the problem, is that copyright is not about the "product" but about how to get me to pay for it. just another of the thousands of things we used to get for free, that now must be mercilessly monetized.

a hundred years ago, trends, fashions, and fads lasted decades, and a hundred years before that, they could stand for scores or centuries.

nowadays a given piece of culture hits it's peak, and demise within the same 6month period. so why are we extending copyright? why aren't these works falling into public domain like they should? greed and lazyness.

there is no reason that one song written in the 1960's shoudl have turned into a lifelong source of income for the guy that wrote it.

so if you are still reading, ask yourself this: why/how is the happy birthday song copyrighted? what possible motivation other than an obsession with control, and greed, could drive someone to copyright a childrens song? what the heck is wrong with these people?

[forrestcupp]

Maybe you hadn't been following whats going on with youtube,
they are under attack. Did you know happy birthday is copyrighted.? Your 5 year old can be charged with coppyright infringement for singing it. They are already removing children birthday party's from you tube.It's not true that you can't sing a copyrighted song; you just can't publish it in any way. That's why there are thousands of cover bands who never get in trouble.

I work with the music ministry at my church. The only time we have to worry about copyright is when we either display the lyrics with a projector, or print out the lyrics or music. For that, we pay a yearly license fee. If we were to just sing the songs and not publish the lyrics or music in any way, we wouldn't have to worry about having a license.

Posting a video to YouTube is one way of publishing a copyrighted song. No one is going to get in any trouble for just singing the song at a birthday party, even if the writer of the song happened to walk by and hear it.


You know there is piles upon piles of government money being sent to Universities every year? My government funded college education and salary must be some kind of weird illusion. I have no idea why people keep acting like it's impossible to make money writing software without a copyright law.

Before copyright existed, that's exactly how authors made money, through sponsorship from aristocrats (ie. the government). We are moving more and more back into that system.But that takes a large amount of trust, which is something that is sadly lacking in the world today. I really don't see the world heading toward more trustworthiness.


Ever since the recession, there has been a lot more government money being put into the arts and sciences. Hence there are even more academic positions open then usual.Where I live, it's sadly the complete opposite. Because of the recession, they are taking away funding for the arts and education. The high school that I graduated from recently axed their art and choir classes, and our state is taking away a lot of funding for education. Extremely stupid in my opinion.

I can't believe that you can't even take art in my old school. They must not realize that commercial art is a very viable profession.

[phrostbyte]

But that takes a large amount of trust, which is something that is sadly lacking in the world today. I really don't see the world heading toward more trustworthiness.

You are kidding right? The trends, as I said, is to more government involvement in the economy, and that includes funding science, art, and other things with massive cash infusions.

The private industry has been completely DEAD for the past ten years. Zero growth. All the job growth in the past ten years has been in the public sector.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/business/economy/08charts.html

The US federal government is the largest employer in the United States. This does not include government contractors, or academia which largely rely on federal government funding to survive. Neither does this include state or city governments. The public sector is a HUUUUGE economic force, and they have no profit motive at all.

I wouldn't be surprised if at this point, there is more economic activity in the public sector then the private sector.

What does that mean? It means the government could pay the salary of every single person in the music industry and not even flinch. Remember this is an organization that passed a cool $700 billion dollars to fund the failing private banking industry. We have nationalized the banking industry, and the auto industry, so why not the music industry? It's like pennies compared to the banking industry.

And then we could get rid of copyright (at least on music), and everyone can "still make a living".

[phrostbyte]

Anyway I think it's going happen regardless. The music and newspaper industry is not doing very well since the popularization of the Internet, and the new found disrespect for copyright law it helped enable.

I think it's obvious that both industries are "too big to fail". Either they will get a government bailout at some point (which means income tax funds them in the end), or they will successfully introduce an additional "filesharing tax" on Internet connections and other such things. That way, the creative industries will continue to survive, and copyright will become irrelevant.

[BuffaloX]

According to whom? Moreover, are you talking about actuarial profit, or economic profit? Or are you just (as I assume) making stuff up?

If you don't understand that, how can you claim to understand even basic economic principles?


When was this, exactly? Money has been around for thousands of years; it is as old as civilization. Please do some research and stop making stuff up.

Oh please, are you trolling?
Everybody knows the Chinese invented the concept of money, and even went bankrupt before any other country in the world tried to implement it.
Of course trade must have occurred before there would be a need to invent money.

[thatguruguy]

If you don't understand that, how can you claim to understand even basic economic principles?

I've taught economics (specifically, the economics of public finance) at the college level. There is a difference between economic profit and actuarial profit. I do, indeed, understand the difference; I assume that the person I was responding to does not. I presume you don't understand the difference, either.


Oh please, are you trolling?
Everybody knows the Chinese invented the concept of money, and even went bankrupt before any other country in the world tried to implement it.
Of course trade must have occurred before there would be a need to invent money.

Agreed about trade must exist for there to be a need for money. Assuming you are capable of basic comprehension, you'll see that we were discussing costs of the growth, transportation and storage of food. Which implies trade, as opposed to either a) foraging or b) growing your own food.

[Warpnow]

I'll say this...

There is no way in hell the music industry will get a bail out. They are not too big to fail. Its nothing like the banking industry.

Sorry phrostbyte, but suggesting this is a bit silly in my opinion. The music industry is a luxury good, a service, and in times of recession, it is often in the best interest of an economy for these kinds of industries to dwindle and suffer, because if they don't, then people aren't spending very wisely, whether it be directly or indirectly through taxes.

It all comes down to resources. The government bailed out the banking industry because without them, he dispersion of resources becomes immensely difficult, and it collapses dozens of other industries. The music industry is an end-of-the-line producer, and therefore its impact when it suffers is minimal to the rest of the economy. In short, it has no forward links to other sectors.

The banking industry, however, has MANY forward links. Almost every business in existance needs loan money. Increased interested rates on loans will destroy agriculture, and small business entirely.

[BuffaloX]

I've taught economics (specifically, the economics of public finance) at the college level.

Then stop posting nonsense like this:


When was this, exactly? Money has been around for thousands of years; it is as old as civilization. Please do some research and stop making stuff up.

Nough said.

[thatguruguy]

BuffaloX, I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make. Do you have a list of societies which used no form of exchange other than direct barter? If you do, provide the list. If not, shut up.

[Xbehave]

Everybody knows the Chinese invented the concept of money, and even went bankrupt before any other country in the world tried to implement it.
Of course trade must have occurred before there would be a need to invent money.
Using phrases like "everybody knows" for incorrect "facts" isn't a great way to have a discussion

Many cultures around the world eventually developed the use of commodity money. The shekel was originally both a unit of currency and a unit of weight.[11]. The first usage of the term came from Mesopotamia circa 3000 BC
while 3000BC isn't quite the dawn of civilisation, it isn't far off (civilisation evolved between 8000BC and 4000BC)

[Xbehave]

BuffaloX, I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make. Do you have a list of societies which used no form of exchange other than direct barter? If you do, provide the list. If not, shut up.
to quoteth wikipeida

The use of barter-like methods may date back to at least 100,000 years ago, though there is no evidence of a society or economy that relied primarily on barter.[9] Instead, non-monetary societies operated largely along the principles of gift economics. When barter did occur, it was usually between either complete strangers or potential enemies.[10]
Basically we went from giving to money.

[thatguruguy]

Although phrostbyte would argue that we're going back to becoming a "gift" society. Apparently consuming goods made by robots in replicators.

[whiskeylover]

... while everybody is a professor.

[thatguruguy]

and everything will be paid for by the government, who will make money fall out of the sky!

[doas777]

I'm reminded of a conversation from a DS9 ep. O'Brien and Bashir were trying to convince Rom the ferengi, that he should start a labor union, and force managment (Quark) to stop exploiting the workers.

Rom of course responded: "Ferengi laborers don't want to stop teh expoitation, they just want to find a way to become the exploiters."


to me, Rom's logic is the only defense copyright supporters make. they just want to find a way to exploit the rest of us, via their holdings. in the long run, their arguments all come down to greed and the supposed motivation it provides (no one would write music if it didn't pay in long term royalties). well how does that argument hold up? I'm sitting here typing away on an ubuntu system, that was free to download, created by volunteers and companies exercizing ENLIGHTENED self-interest.

[forrestcupp]

I'll say this...

There is no way in hell the music industry will get a bail out. They are not too big to fail. Its nothing like the banking industry.

Sorry phrostbyte, but suggesting this is a bit silly in my opinion. The music industry is a luxury good, a service, and in times of recession, it is often in the best interest of an economy for these kinds of industries to dwindle and suffer, because if they don't, then people aren't spending very wisely, whether it be directly or indirectly through taxes.

It all comes down to resources. The government bailed out the banking industry because without them, he dispersion of resources becomes immensely difficult, and it collapses dozens of other industries. The music industry is an end-of-the-line producer, and therefore its impact when it suffers is minimal to the rest of the economy. In short, it has no forward links to other sectors.

The banking industry, however, has MANY forward links. Almost every business in existance needs loan money. Increased interested rates on loans will destroy agriculture, and small business entirely.

+1, mostly

While the trend is for big government, the government's primary responsibilities other than making, enforcing, and judging laws, are protection and infrastructure. Banks and auto industry contribute to both protection and infrastructure. The music industry doesn't have anything to do with anything that really matters to the government. Sure, politicians will cry tears about job losses to get your votes. But they don't really care about anything that doesn't benefit them.

Like Warpnow said, the music industry is nothing more than a luxury that is not a necessity to live in today's society. The music industry will not be bought out by the government until the Constitution is overthrown and we become an all out Socialist state.

[Bios Element]

(Watches as the eyes are turned from the various Record and Movie company's that are making RECORD profits for 3-5 years running.)

[k64]

You want to hear my idea about copyright?

Under my opinion, it MUST be accompanied by the GPL. Not that it matters anyway, but really, I do agree with copyright law somewhat.

I do NOT agree with software patents. They're the real stupidity, because they only allow companies to create monopolies in the software industry by eliminating competition of any value.

[thatguruguy]

(Watches as the eyes are turned from the various Record and Movie company's that are making RECORD profits for 3-5 years running.)

LINK PLZ.

According to this article (http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2009/tc2009035_000194.htm) in Business Week, total music industry revenue has gone from $14B in 2000 down to $10B in 2008.


EDIT: And for the record, the plural form of the word "company" is "companies."

[thatguruguy]

You want to hear my idea about copyright?

Under my opinion, it MUST be accompanied by the GPL. Not that it matters anyway, but really, I do agree with copyright law somewhat.

I do NOT agree with software patents. They're the real stupidity, because they only allow companies to create monopolies in the software industry by eliminating competition of any value.

You can't patent an idea. Just because Microsoft has made an operating system doesn't prevent anyone else from making an operating system; they just can't use Microsoft's code. In the realm of browsers, Google and Firefox are trying to compete with Microsoft by making better products. They don't need Microsoft's IE code to do that.

[k64]

You can't patent an idea. Just because Microsoft has made an operating system doesn't prevent anyone else from making an operating system; they just can't use Microsoft's code. In the realm of browsers, Google and Firefox are trying to compete with Microsoft by making better products. They don't need Microsoft's IE code to do that.

So then, ReactOS ('http://www.reactos.org') cannot get attacked by Microsoft legally, even if it really was a threat to their patents on Windows?

[Warpnow]

You can't patent an idea. Just because Microsoft has made an operating system doesn't prevent anyone else from making an operating system; they just can't use Microsoft's code. In the realm of browsers, Google and Firefox are trying to compete with Microsoft by making better products. They don't need Microsoft's IE code to do that.

Microsoft recently (or maybe not, the articular I read might have been old) patented the concept of keys that move text one page at a time, ie the pageUP/pageDown keys. I don't honestly know what can and can't be patented, but ideas are often patented. CPU architectures, designs, models, plans, blueprints, ect.

[KiwiNZ]

So then, ReactOS (http://www.reactos.org) cannot get attacked by Microsoft legally, even if it really was a threat to their patents on Windows?

If they are breaching any MS patents yes they will.

[thatguruguy]

So then, ReactOS (http://www.reactos.org) cannot get attacked by Microsoft legally, even if it really was a threat to their patents on Windows?

Nothing can stop anyone from suing anyone else. The question is whether Microsoft could win. That depends on whether ReactOS actually does violate Microsoft's intellectual property, by doing stuff like (as has been alleged) using Microsoft's actual code.

BTW, since it is "innovation" you want, what is "innovative" about making a carbon copy of an existing operating system?

[thatguruguy]

Microsoft recently (or maybe not, the articular I read might have been old) patented the concept of keys that move text one page at a time, ie the pageUP/pageDown keys. I don't honestly know what can and can't be patented, but ideas are often patented. CPU architectures, designs, models, plans, blueprints, ect.

Find the article you're referring to. Generally, in order to obtain a patent, the design must be novel and non-obvious. I doubt they have the patent you refer to.

Plans, designs, etc., aren't ideas. They are putting ideas into practice, which is a different thing than a simple idea.

EDIT: Just for fun, here is the US code entry requiring the invention to be "non-obvious": http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/35/II/10/103

Here's the requirement for "novelty": http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/35/II/10/102

[Warpnow]

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-218626.html

There is a link to the actual patent.

[spiritech]

copyright is a bad idea because ideas create ideas and that is evolution which is the very bases of our survival as indivduals and as a whole

spiritech

[thatguruguy]

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-218626.html

There is a link to the actual patent.


You're right.

Now let's see them enforce it. Getting the patent and being able to enforce it are two different things.

[jrothwell97]

You want to hear my idea about copyright?

Under my opinion, it MUST be accompanied by the GPL.

In such a hypothetical scenario, you wouldn't really own the copyright. Well, you would, but being forced to place it under a certain licence is no different - in fact, worse than the free-for-all that existed before the idea of copyright was ever conceived.

One of the great things about copyright is that you are free to do what you like with your rights: you can choose to sell the content for a fee, you can give it away for free along with permission to redistribute and modify at will, or you can go the whole hog and stick it in the public domain.

Imagine what the uproar would be if someone told us that copyright MUST be accompanied by an equivalent of the MS EULA.


Not that it matters anyway, but really, I do agree with copyright law somewhat.

I do NOT agree with software patents. They're the real stupidity, because they only allow companies to create monopolies in the software industry by eliminating competition of any value.

Software patents, I'll agree, are bad.

However, it all comes down to how broad the patent is. Ostensibly, a patent can only cover a certain implementation of an idea, not the idea itself. For example, Apple could probably patent Mac OS X's dock, but you wouldn't be able to patent the idea of a dock (so you couldn't try to claim royalties on all dock implementations out there), and you certainly couldn't patent the idea of a task switcher.

Also, call me devil's advocate, but patents are also meant to help innovation, not stifle it. True, there are patent trolls out there, all of whom must die a painful death - however, think what it would be like if every single operating system on the planet shipped with identical kernels, task switchers, file systems, etc. Innovation (at least from commercial companies) would simply grind to a halt, since they'd all be busy copying their rivals precisely.

In short, both copyright and patents are a double-edged sword.

[Warpnow]

copyright is a bad idea because ideas create ideas and that is evolution which is the very bases of our survival as indivduals and as a whole

spiritech

There is something to this from an ideological view. An inventor is never the sole inventor, but rather the inventor alongside te technologies he was exposed to and used for the invention. Inventing a new, better type of design often draws not only on old patent holders, but researchers in the field who have therized and helped to build the understanding.

[Paul Stone]

You can't patent an idea. Just because Microsoft has made an operating system doesn't prevent anyone else from making an operating system; they just can't use Microsoft's code. In the realm of browsers, Google and Firefox are trying to compete with Microsoft by making better products. They don't need Microsoft's IE code to do that.

You seem to be confusing software copyright with software patents. Software patents protect the invented algorithm contained within the software. So, you would not be permitted to create a bubble sort, if the bubble sort algorithm is patented. Doesn't matter that you write it from scratch. It's the algorithm which is important.

Of course, you can't patent something as complex as an operating system (or maybe nobody has tried -- ulp).

[samjh]

in the long run, their arguments all come down to greed and the supposed motivation it provides (no one would write music if it didn't pay in long term royalties). well how does that argument hold up? I'm sitting here typing away on an ubuntu system, that was free to download, created by volunteers and companies exercizing ENLIGHTENED self-interest.

The argument holds up perfectly fine, because in our real world -- rather than a fantasy utopia -- people generally need to work for money. Doing work for the sake of good-will and charity alone, are exceptions, not the norm.

Does any self-supporting adult here exercise "enlightened self-interest" by doing everything for free?

Let's keep this discussion in the realm of reality, not fiction.

[thenudehamster]

Copyright and patent arguments for 'intellectual property' tend to polarise between those who want unrestricted access to everything, and those who want total control over ideas. The solution must lie somewhere in between - I don't profess to have it, but perhaps I can add something to understanding. While they are not exactly two sides of the same coin, they are related.

Copyright is, to my mind, essential; it gives the creator and owner of an original work control over what happens to it. Imagine, if you will, that you have just spent two years hard work developing, updating, correcting and refining some application - let's call it a doohickey - which is now fit for release. You want to earn some money for it, perhaps; not a lot, but some reward for your efforts wouldn't come amiss. Without copyright, anyone can take your doohickey, copy it and market it for themselves, and there's nothing you can do about it. With copyright you retain control over what happens to the doohickey; you can sell it, give it away freely, give it away with conditions (license it, in other words, akin to the GNU licence) allow others to make copies of it for a fee (commercial licensing), but the point is, you choose, and you retain control.

Patents are a slightly different thing; they allow you to prevent anyone else from producing a copy of the doohickey for a fixed period of time, but in submitting the application you have to reveal all the details of it.

Both arrangements have advantages and disadvantages: drug companies, for instance, can charge more for a patented drug so that they can then recoup the cost of development of that drug; I have no problem with that basic principle, because without it, we probably wouldn't get the investment in new drugs that modern medicine needs.
Intellectual property is a little less clear, and in terms of performance property (music, songs, and similar) has, I fear gone way over the top. Music is now copyright not only for the life of the composer or performer, but also for fifty years after his or her death - and even that is considered not long enough; the latest proposal I heard of was to increase it to seventy five years. Even worse, they license the right to use it and to charge you for it. Can you imagine a situation with a piece of software that you had to pay for every time you used it on on a computer in a library? It happens with music!

Copyright for software (for that is what most of us reading these forums are interested in, I would think) must remain; it's the only way that authors can retain control over what happens to their work; the author (or whoever the copyright may be assigned to by the author) can assign that licence as he likes, with or without charge or conditions, but he has that right. Copyright ensures that properties such as compatibility, suitability, and quality can be controlled; without it, we would have complete anarchy.
The unfortunate corollary is that we cannot demand that copyright owners license their products for no fee, nor that they allow us all to know how it does what it does. All we can do is encourage developers to produce their work and distribute it under fair, equitable, and reasonable conditions. It's not a perfect system, but I think it does at least give the developer reasonable rights to his work.

[BuffaloX]

BuffaloX, I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make. Do you have a list of societies which used no form of exchange other than direct barter? If you do, provide the list. If not, shut up.

You are trying to derail the argument by simply changing it, here is what you wrote:

"When was this, exactly? Money has been around for thousands of years; it is as old as civilization. Please do some research and stop making stuff up."

Money is as old as civilization, which is logically impossible, and then you accuse the other part for making stuff up???


Using phrases like "everybody knows" for incorrect "facts" isn't a great way to have a discussion

while 3000BC isn't quite the dawn of civilisation, it isn't far off (civilisation evolved between 8000BC and 4000BC)

Which incorrect facts?

Civilization started more than 10.000 years ago, when farming was discovered.
That would put the invention of money just about midways between the dawn of civilization and where we are now.
It could also be argued to have been earlier or later depending on the organizational level you feel is required.

Definitions of the dawn of civilization has to do with the level of organization, and I think it's pretty safe to say, that a high level of organization is needed to implement a monetary system.
That means money can't possibly have existed since the dawn of civilization, even without knowing when each occurred.

edit:
Oh I forgot, the first monetary system failed, and it took many years before it was tried again. So even if money was invented at the dawn of civilization, there have been periods after that which had no monetary system.

[thatguruguy]

I'm still waiting for that list of civilizations which used a barter system.

[KiwiNZ]

I'm still waiting for that list of civilizations which used a barter system.

It is done here in NZ its called "Green Dollars"

[thatguruguy]

You are trying to derail the argument by simply changing it, here is what you wrote:

"When was this, exactly? Money has been around for thousands of years; it is as old as civilization. Please do some research and stop making stuff up."

Money is as old as civilization, which is logically impossible, and then you accuse the other part for making stuff up???

Which incorrect facts?

Civilization started more than 10.000 years ago, when farming was discovered.
That would put the invention of money just about midways between the dawn of civilization and where we are now.
It could also be argued to have been earlier or later depending on the organizational level you feel is required.

Definitions of the dawn of civilization has to do with the level of organization, and I think it's pretty safe to say, that a high level of organization is needed to implement a monetary system.
That means money can't possibly have existed since the dawn of civilization, even without knowing when each occurred.

Farming can exist without civilization. Ever since there has been organization you refer to, there has been some kind of medium for exchange (shekels, shells, etc.). It may not have been U.S. dollars, but it was money.

[thatguruguy]

It is done here in NZ its called "Green Dollars"

I had no idea that NZ had completely shifted to "Green Dollars."

[thatguruguy]

copyright is a bad idea because ideas create ideas and that is evolution which is the very bases of our survival as indivduals and as a whole

spiritech

Which is why there were absolutely no new ideas developed in the 20th century.

[KiwiNZ]

I had no idea that NZ had completely shifted to "Green Dollars."

You asked where it was used . It is used here . You never specified if our entire fiscal system was based on it. Of course it is not.

[phrostbyte]

I'll say this...

There is no way in hell the music industry will get a bail out. They are not too big to fail. Its nothing like the banking industry.

Sorry phrostbyte, but suggesting this is a bit silly in my opinion. The music industry is a luxury good, a service, and in times of recession, it is often in the best interest of an economy for these kinds of industries to dwindle and suffer, because if they don't, then people aren't spending very wisely, whether it be directly or indirectly through taxes.

It all comes down to resources. The government bailed out the banking industry because without them, he dispersion of resources becomes immensely difficult, and it collapses dozens of other industries. The music industry is an end-of-the-line producer, and therefore its impact when it suffers is minimal to the rest of the economy. In short, it has no forward links to other sectors.

The banking industry, however, has MANY forward links. Almost every business in existance needs loan money. Increased interested rates on loans will destroy agriculture, and small business entirely.

I don't really agree ... Politicians will bail out whatever politically makes sense for them, and one thing that is difficult to deny is the level of political power the music industry posses.

There is already precedent for a "music tax" in Canada (and possibly other countries as well). It wouldn't be hard to extend this to a "filesharing tax" on ISPs. I won't be surprised if this becomes the norm in the near future.

[phrostbyte]

Although phrostbyte would argue that we're going back to becoming a "gift" society. Apparently consuming goods made by robots in replicators.


... while everybody is a professor.

I am assume you are being completely sarcastic, but there is nothing absurd about what I said. Robotics and machines already produce many (or most?) of the developed world's goods. And academia has grown in importance since then. Welcome to the industrial age. Romanticism is direct responses to these trends, which involves celebration of human labor, because human labor has become more irrelevant with time.

[t0p]

Yes there is, the realistic middle ground is what is happening in Europe, Record labels and governments can try and push stupid legislation through, but the European Courts will overturn any law that infringes important liberties pointlessly.

Really? And which Europe do you live in? Not the same one as me. Where I live, the European courts sometimes declare national laws illegal, sometimes they don't. Whether or not they infringe important liberties pointlessly is often neither here nor there. For instance, in France there's a "three strikes" law: if you are accused (not convicted) three times of infringing copyright laws, your internet connection will be cut off. The UK government is pushing for a similar law. And the European Court of human Rights has ruled that internet access is not a fundamental right; so if your internet access is cut off, adversely affecting your ability to access education, employment or communication it's just your hard luck.

And even if the European courts declare that a law is illegal, many European states just ignore the ruling. For instance, the ECHR has recently ruled that the UK police's powers to stop and search members of the public without any reason or justification for the search is unlawful. So has the UK government told the police to stop carrying out these illegal stop+searches? No, they're carrying on at an alarming rate.

You're discussing things about which you are ignorant. Carry on.

[t0p]

Here's an example of why copyright laws are not fit for purpose: Bob McBob is an artist. He goes to comicbook conventions and makes a few quid by drawing pictures for the fans. You give him some cash, he draws a portrait of you with your favourite comicbook character. Let's say he does a picture of your son with Spider-Man. He hasn't caused Marvel Comics any harm: it's not as if you were going to spend that cash on official Spider-Man merchandise. He's made your son happy, and he's earned a few quid. A win-win situation if ever I saw one.

But no: a Marvel Comics rep sees what he's doing and tells the lawyers. Next thing you know, Bob McBob is getting a cease & desist letter. Maybe he gets taken to court, depending on how much money Marvel thinks he's been making with his illegal portraits. So they sue him. He can't pay the court-ordered damages because he's not allowed to sell his evil portraits. So he loses his home and goes to jail. And that's right and proper, cos he was stealing the food out of the mouths of Marvel's executives' babies. Hoo-rah! Copyright Forever!

[t0p]

I'm still waiting for that list of civilizations which used a barter system.

You are one lazy guru! A half-assed look at Wikipedia turned up stuff on the barter system at Jonbeel Mela (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonbeel_Mela#Barter_system) (India), the Hacienda system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacienda) in Central and South America, the Third Dynasty of Ur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Dynasty_of_Ur), the barter system that arose in the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union#History) when factory workers were paid with the products they made... and that's just some of the results on this Wikipedia search page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=barter+system+in+history&sourceid=Mozilla-search).

Are you really a guru? Or is that irony?

[BuffaloX]

I don't really agree ... Politicians will bail out whatever politically makes sense for them, and one thing that is difficult to deny is the level of political power the music industry posses.

There is already precedent for a "music tax" in Canada (and possibly other countries as well). It wouldn't be hard to extend this to a "filesharing tax" on ISPs. I won't be surprised if this becomes the norm in the near future.

I agree examples of Movie/Music industry influence on politicians.
Tight copyright laws, which enable music industry to prevent 5 year olds singing happy birthday on You Tube in 8 bit mono with poor microphones.
Recent extension of copyright period to 95 years.
120.000$ fines for sharing one piece of music.
Police intervention in what should be a civic case.
The common practice in courts that one copy = one lost sale.
The ACTA negotiations completely designed by RIAA.
Tax on all empty media that is able to carry music. (maybe not in US yet)

And yes Internet Tax is already on the table here in Denmark, for the exact same reason of protecting the music industry. Oh sorry I mean artists.

[spiritech]

another reason why copyright is a bad idea-

if someone makes a film or music track and copyrights it, it is dead, because indivduals are then restricdted and cannot use there own creative abilities to edit and change it, therefor creating something new.

[BuffaloX]

You are one lazy guru! A half-assed look at Wikipedia turned up stuff on the barter system at Jonbeel Mela (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonbeel_Mela#Barter_system) (India), the Hacienda system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacienda) in Central and South America, the Third Dynasty of Ur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Dynasty_of_Ur), the barter system that arose in the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union#History) when factory workers were paid with the products they made... and that's just some of the results on this Wikipedia search page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=barter+system+in+history&sourceid=Mozilla-search).

Are you really a guru? Or is that irony?

Thanks. :D
I didn't really care to do it myself, the whole thing is just too stupid.

PS
Good example with the boy as spiderman painting.

[Xbehave]

You are one lazy guru! A half-assed look at Wikipedia turned up stuff on the barter system at Jonbeel Mela (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonbeel_Mela#Barter_system) (India), the Hacienda system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacienda) in Central and South America, the Third Dynasty of Ur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Dynasty_of_Ur), the barter system that arose in the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union#History) when factory workers were paid with the products they made... and that's just some of the results on this Wikipedia search page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=barter+system+in+history&sourceid=Mozilla-search). None of those places used only bartering though, the primary method of exchange was either giving stuff away or money, bartering was always in addition to one of the two.

[phrostbyte]

another reason why copyright is a bad idea-

if someone makes a film or music track and copyrights it, it is dead, because indivduals are then restricdted and cannot use there own creative abilities to edit and change it, therefor creating something new.

I think that's probably one of the worst aspects of modern copyright law.

[Chronon]

another reason why copyright is a bad idea-

if someone makes a film or music track and copyrights it, it is dead, because indivduals are then restricdted and cannot use there own creative abilities to edit and change it, therefor creating something new.

Go to http://www.jamendo.com/en/creativecommons for a wealth of examples of copyrighted work that may be freely used in derivative works. (All of the items licensed without the NoDerivs clause can be used as source material for creative works.)

[RabbitWho]

another reason why copyright is a bad idea-

if someone makes a film or music track and copyrights it, it is dead, because indivduals are then restricdted and cannot use there own creative abilities to edit and change it, therefor creating something new.


Wtf? so remixes are illegal? there are thousands of them, what about the remastered beatles albums, what about the fact that every time someone plays something live it sounds different and usually has a few different words?
. yes.. a neon yellow sky would be awful.. but it's not fricken neon yellow

As a printmaker I know the history of copyright quite well, I know what the world used to be like and how creative people used to just starve to death because there was literally no way to make a penny from a work of art.

How does this help creativity?

Copyright, and levels of copyright, should be optional, just as it is.

Which is better, I make a program and sell it so people with jobs can exchange a symbol that represents 3 hours of their work (money) for the product of a few months of my work (the program) OR I could get a non-creative job myself and not have the time or the money or the energy to make the program in the first place.

Copyrights are good, if you make something you have earned the right to be paid or it, just like if you worked for 10 hours a day 6 days for a week for a month as a janitor you wouldn't want someone else claiming your wages.

I have no idea how anyone could be against this.. except that yee either haven't thought it through, or have never created anything worthwhile personally.

[yester64]

Wtf? so remixes are illegal? there are thousands of them, what about the remastered beatles albums, what about the fact that every time someone plays something live it sounds different and usually has a few different words?
. yes.. a neon yellow sky would be awful.. but it's not fricken neon yellow

In principal, if you use a anything what someone created, you have to pay royalties. If not, you can get sued.
Notice that radios play jingles? These jingles are very short and, if i am not mistaken, do not require to pay the artist if it does not exceed 20 seconds or so.
If you remaster a beatles album and publish it, you can be certain that paul mccartney will be after you.

[Zoot7]

Whether or not they infringe important liberties pointlessly is often neither here nor there. For instance, in France there's a "three strikes" law: if you are accused (not convicted) three times of infringing copyright laws, your internet connection will be cut off. The UK government is pushing for a similar law. And the European Court of human Rights has ruled that internet access is not a fundamental right; so if your internet access is cut off, adversely affecting your ability to access education, employment or communication it's just your hard luck.

And even if the European courts declare that a law is illegal, many European states just ignore the ruling. For instance, the ECHR has recently ruled that the UK police's powers to stop and search members of the public without any reason or justification for the search is unlawful. So has the UK government told the police to stop carrying out these illegal stop+searches? No, they're carrying on at an alarming rate.
Exactly. Sad to see the profits of Media Corporations being treated with a far higher priority than the public usage of what is becoming an essential service. All because they refuse to adapt to the times.
I can tell you one thing, if I ever get hassled in the future by copyright notices or have to sign up with an ISP that's in bed with the Entertainment industry I'll be investing in a VPN service. The word of mouth is that many are actually going this way.


Here's an example of why copyright laws are not fit for purpose: Bob McBob is an artist. He goes to comicbook conventions and makes a few quid by drawing pictures for the fans. You give him some cash, he draws a portrait of you with your favourite comicbook character. Let's say he does a picture of your son with Spider-Man. He hasn't caused Marvel Comics any harm: it's not as if you were going to spend that cash on official Spider-Man merchandise. He's made your son happy, and he's earned a few quid. A win-win situation if ever I saw one.

But no: a Marvel Comics rep sees what he's doing and tells the lawyers. Next thing you know, Bob McBob is getting a cease & desist letter. Maybe he gets taken to court, depending on how much money Marvel thinks he's been making with his illegal portraits. So they sue him. He can't pay the court-ordered damages because he's not allowed to sell his evil portraits. So he loses his home and goes to jail. And that's right and proper, cos he was stealing the food out of the mouths of Marvel's executives' babies. Hoo-rah! Copyright Forever!
Great example, furthering on that and using myself as an example.
One thing I like to is take tracks such as the theme song from a game/movie/musical, or another well known artist and record it myself and put my own spin on it in the form of making a "rock version" and adding in some solos and harmonies to it. I don't distribute the end result for profit, I do however give them to any friends of mine who express interest.
Technically I can be sued by the record labels for doing this, because apparently I'm "infringing" upon their copyrights.

Another example, you're walking down the street and you hear the music from somebody's open window (be it a car/house). Technically you can be sued because you're experiencing work that some greedy capitalist group have "copyrighted" even when it's not their work to begin with. This is also true of hearing Music and maybe humming the track in your head for the day.

I'll be honest, I hate the Media Corporations. They sue students, dead people, elderly people, low income families, single parent families and extort from people when they know that their targets can’t afford to defend themselves. Also, they control and manipulate politicians and lawmakers so that they can make themselves fatter and richer and continue to enslave artists and pay them as little as possible and the executives and lawyers can keep the lions share, all in the name of profit.

So yes, while the idea of copyright isn't bad per se, the law is absolutely detrimental for public interest in the hands of these types of corporations.

[samjh]

Wtf? so remixes are illegal? there are thousands of them, what about the remastered beatles albums, what about the fact that every time someone plays something live it sounds different and usually has a few different words?
Remixes and live performances may be eligible for the "fair use" defence, depending on their nature.

Parodies tend to be protected by fair use, as is the practice of "sampling" (ie. taking a portion of copyrighted music and incorporating it into another). Playing music for personal enjoyment is generally protected under fair use. Playing music for educational purposes (eg. teachers playing a song for kids in class) is also generally regarded as defensible under fair use.

Live music performances is quite tricky. If it is a public concert, the venue owners or concert organisers will usually foot the bill for copyright licensing. This includes busking: public authorities and shopping centres have traditionally paid for copyright licensing for buskers, but there is a trend in making individual buskers pay the fee themselves.

It's important to note that "fair use" is not a universally-accepted legal doctrine. Fair use is US-centric, although some other countries have adopted it with some variations. In the British Commonwealth (ie. UK, Australia, Canada, etc.), there are a variety of "fair dealing" laws that provide exceptions to copyright protections. One should also consult the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and later relevant international agreements.


Another example, you're walking down the street and you hear the music from somebody's open window (be it a car/house). Technically you can be sued because you're experiencing work that some greedy capitalist group have "copyrighted" even when it's not their work to begin with. This is also true of hearing Music and maybe humming the track in your head for the day.No, you can't be sued for either of those. Listening to someone else's musical performance doesn't make you legally liable for anything. Humming copyrighted music in your head (or out loud) for personal enjoyment is not a breach of copyright, either.

[Zoot7]

No, you can't be sued for either of those. Listening to someone else's musical performance doesn't make you legally liable for anything. Humming copyrighted music in your head (or out loud) for personal enjoyment is not a breach of copyright, either.
Technically you're experiencing music without paying for it, and thus by the logic of recording industry, "depriving the artist (or rather, them) of a sale". They could most likely push it and extort money from you.

[samjh]

No, they can't. The recording industry is limited by their legal rights, and in the case of someone who listens to music played by another, or humming music in their head, they have no legal rights to do anything about that.

If you are sitting in a bus, happily humming a copyrighted tune for your personal enjoyment only, and a RIAA rep hears it from across the aisle and threatens to sue you for it, you can quite safely flash a "W" with your fingers and say, "WHAT-EVA!". :p

[Zoot7]

No, they can't. The recording industry is limited by their legal rights, and in the case of someone who listens to music played by another, or humming music in their head, they have no legal rights to do anything about that.

If you are sitting in a bus, happily humming a copyrighted tune for your personal enjoyment only, and a RIAA rep hears it from across the aisle and threatens to sue you for it, you can quite safely flash a "W" with your fingers and say, "WHAT-EVA!". :p
Let me stop you right there. The thing is that's their basis for all the crackdown at the ISP level (I'll admit my two examples weren't great :p ). Let me throw out some better examples, when it comes to "depriving the artists of a sale" according to them.

If I happen to see a CD on a shelf and decide not to buy it, I’m depriving the artist of a sale.

If decide to buy a CD, but then change my mind, I’m depriving the artist of a sale.

If I go to the iTunes store and listen to the 30 second previews of the music on a CD and decide not to buy it, I’ve not only deprived the artist of a sale, but I’ve also listened to their work for free.

If I listen to an album on the radio and doing so makes me decide that hearing it once is good enough and I don’t need to buy the CD after all, then I’ve listened to the artist’s work in its entirety as well as deprived them of a sale.

If I want a CD but I just check it out of the library because I can do that instead of buying it, I’ve deprived the artist of a sale.

If I want a CD but I just borrow it from a friend because I can do that instead of buying it, I’ve deprived the artist of a sale.

What makes all of these fundamentally different and illegal when it comes to downloading some music online? When one thinks of it like this, you really see how laughable and farcical the whole system is.

[Xbehave]

Technically you're experiencing music without paying for it, and thus by the logic of recording industry, "depriving the artist (or rather, them) of a sale". They could most likely push it and extort money from you.
Sure if we live in some weird parallel universe where you make up the rules, but here in the real world, it's only distributing copies of copyrighted materials that's illegal, gigs/etc are always fine because they are creating the music.

[azagaros]

I have been a programmer for years. The issue I have with copyrights is generally software related. If the sources were provided to the copyrighted software, which is sold to me and I generally have rights to do with it as I please as long as I don't sell it to someone else. I might actually be able to fix some things and find patches out there for others. The wealth of knowledge in those sources is priceless too. How much of the pc is undocumented or buried in the copyrighted world?

If I had the sources many of the bugs of the most popular programs and software would have been to "Utopian" thought that was is talked about here might be a reality. But has it worked for linux? I don't know, my opinion is Linux/gnu still has a long way to go, and reading the Watcom change logs is proof of that.

Copyrights related to anything broadcast through the air, such as a radio program or tv broadcast has me curious. I can trap it on any device and edit with any tool to get what I need and distribute fairly quickly. How did I violate a copyright, you put it out there for the aliens in outer space to have and do they have knowledge of our Intellectual properties rights?

[Zoot7]

Sure if we live in some weird parallel universe where you make up the rules, but here in the real world, it's only distributing copies of copyrighted materials that's illegal, gigs/etc are always fine because they are creating the music.
But by the logic of the recording industry that's the exact same as file sharing as it's depriving the artist of a sale, because you listened to the music but didn't pay for it.
I'll admit I didn't go about getting that point across in the best way, read my post above. :tongue:

[phrostbyte]

No, they can't. The recording industry is limited by their legal rights, and in the case of someone who listens to music played by another, or humming music in their head, they have no legal rights to do anything about that.

If you are sitting in a bus, happily humming a copyrighted tune for your personal enjoyment only, and a RIAA rep hears it from across the aisle and threatens to sue you for it, you can quite safely flash a "W" with your fingers and say, "WHAT-EVA!". :p

There has been cases where copyright agencies have actually threatened people with lawsuits or massive fines for singing or humming songs they 'own'.

Here is one case, and only backed down after the media reported on it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/tayside_and_central/8317952.stm

I don't know how successful something like this would be in court, but do realize that it's difficult to win a case against a recording company. Just getting legal threats about something like this is almost insane. :P

"Happy Birthday" is copyrighted too and singing it without a performance license could constitute a copyright violation. You don't want to be caught with such illicit materials like a home video of your 6th birthday party. It just shows you the modern absurdity of copyright law.

[Zoot7]

I don't know how successful something like this would be in court, but do realize that it's difficult to win a case against a recording company. Just getting legal threats about something like this is almost insane. :P

"Happy Birthday" is copyrighted too and singing it without a performance license could constitute a copyright violation. You don't want to be caught with such illicit materials like a home video of your 6th birthday party. It just shows you the modern absurdity of copyright law.
My point exactly! :)

[samjh]

I don't know how successful something like this would be in court, but do realize that it's difficult to win a case against a recording company. Just getting legal threats about something like this is almost insane. :P

"Happy Birthday" is copyrighted too and singing it without a performance license could constitute a copyright violation. You don't want to be caught with such illicit materials like a home video of your 6th birthday party. It just shows you the modern absurdity of copyright law.

They backed down for a reason: they can't win. ;)

I could wager that every judge, magistrate, and lawyer have sung songs for their personal amusement without license from copyright owners. At the very least, everyone has sung "Happy Birthday". Can you imagine the absurdity of arguing such a case in court?

[Sharmani]

few people here would say that copyright in general is bad. But according to me copyright is must and necessary...

[clanky]

I personally like the idea of copyright law. What I don't like is software propriety. Neither does anybody here.

Speak for yourself, I don't have an issue with proprietary software so please don't include me in your sweeping statements Annie.

[Roasted]

Let me stop you right there. The thing is that's their basis for all the crackdown at the ISP level (I'll admit my two examples weren't great :p ). Let me throw out some better examples, when it comes to "depriving the artists of a sale" according to them.

If I happen to see a CD on a shelf and decide not to buy it, I’m depriving the artist of a sale.

If decide to buy a CD, but then change my mind, I’m depriving the artist of a sale.

If I go to the iTunes store and listen to the 30 second previews of the music on a CD and decide not to buy it, I’ve not only deprived the artist of a sale, but I’ve also listened to their work for free.

If I listen to an album on the radio and doing so makes me decide that hearing it once is good enough and I don’t need to buy the CD after all, then I’ve listened to the artist’s work in its entirety as well as deprived them of a sale.

If I want a CD but I just check it out of the library because I can do that instead of buying it, I’ve deprived the artist of a sale.

If I want a CD but I just borrow it from a friend because I can do that instead of buying it, I’ve deprived the artist of a sale.

What makes all of these fundamentally different and illegal when it comes to downloading some music online? When one thinks of it like this, you really see how laughable and farcical the whole system is.

If I buy the artists CD, I support them by providing them with 1-2 pennies while the recording industry pockets the rest.

If I go to a concert of the artist, I support the artist directly.

This is why I haven't bought a CD since I was in middle school, and absolutely never will again. Speaking of which, I'm already lined up to go to 2 concerts by the end of March, with more to come I'm sure.

[Zoot7]

If I buy the artists CD, I support them by providing them with 1-2 pennies while the recording industry pockets the rest.

If I go to a concert of the artist, I support the artist directly.

This is why I haven't bought a CD since I was in middle school, and absolutely never will again. Speaking of which, I'm already lined up to go to 2 concerts by the end of March, with more to come I'm sure.
Exactly!! I haven't bought a CD in about 4 years now, and I've no intention to do so any time soon either.
My answer: Support ALL artists directly, and shamelessly rip off the media corporations. :)