The Other Future Of Copyright: The Draconian Suffocating One
from the well,-that's-unpleasant dept
The fourth piece in the Cato Institute's Future of Copyright series is a bit bizarre. Written by Tom Bell, who we've mentioned before for his efforts to get people to start calling "intellectual property" "intellectual privilege", it attempts to take a look at the "other" future of copyright. It's sort of the opposite scenario to Rasmus Fleischer's opening piece imagining a world without copyright. Bell's piece tries to get into the mindset of a Hollywood exec, explaining why it seems to make sense to make copyright more and more draconian in an effort to make the "costs" of infringement go up by attacking infringers with everything they've got. Of course, this isn't surprising, and even Bell sort of makes the half-hearted case for it, as he admits at the end. If anything, Bell comes to the conclusion that because we haven't already seen even more draconian copyright laws put in place, it may mean that even Big Content execs recognize the differences between copyright and real property. Still, I'm kind of surprised to find out that Cato couldn't at least get a Big Copyright exec to put up their opinion for this particular piece.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"intellectual privilege
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Tried that. Didn't work.
Warner Music Group is so confused it doesn't know which way is up.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071114/151459.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/2008 0606/1752191338.shtml
First they say that they inadvertently "went to war" with file sharers and would stop. There were just two problems with this: it wasn't inadvertent at all, but very much planned by Edgar Bronfman. Second, it hasn't stopped the war.
That's not a defense of copyright. That's grasping at straws and trying to protect an obsolete business model by showing an unwillingness to deal with what the market is saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Most of you are intelligent people, but have a very poor understanding of intellectual property law (I am a former engineer, current patent attorney, worked in-house and at some of the largest IP/patent law firms in the world, coming up on a decade of experience in patents). While there are definite problems, there is so much misunderstanding. Still, I find it interesting to see the public's perception of the problems.
Intellectual privilege? Most of the arguments with respect to why copyrights/other forms of intellectual property should be open to all can be applied to real property (e.g., consider the person that wants to cut across your yard - there is no taking of real property by him walking across your yard, multiple parties (within reason) can use the property at the same time, owning real property unnecessarily limits the actions of those who don't own but otherwise would put to good use the real property, etc.).
I also find complaints with respect to copyright particularly interesting, because the complainers are not complaining that copyright unnecessarily limits their rights to anything they have created - they are complaining that they can't take what someone else has created. Restated, you want to take something of someone elses from someone else, and are irritated that you are limited in doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Most of you are intelligent people, but have a very poor understanding of intellectual property law
Ah, another one. Every few weeks a patent attorney shows up here and makes this claim. It's getting tiresome, but let's go through the response:
1. Yes, we do understand patent law.
2. We're not writing about this from the perspective of the law, anyway, but from an economic perspective. Do you understand economics?
3. We're not justifying taking the work of others. We're trying to show why the creators themselves would be better off by ignoring IP laws.
Most of the arguments with respect to why copyrights/other forms of intellectual property should be open to all can be applied to real property
Actually, that's not quite true. It's a favorite of IP attorneys, but it's cherry picking. For every similarity to real property, I can explain a difference. For example, if you think that it's the same as property, why can't the person who buys music give it away just like I could give away real property I purchased? Also, why doesn't real property go into the public domain after a period of time?
I also find complaints with respect to copyright particularly interesting, because the complainers are not complaining that copyright unnecessarily limits their rights to anything they have created - they are complaining that they can't take what someone else has created. Restated, you want to take something of someone elses from someone else, and are irritated that you are limited in doing so.
Actually, that's completely untrue in my case. I have made it clear that I do not engage in file sharing, nor do I encourage it. I am simply explaining the economics at play.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
However, the differences in facility, have very little impact in terms of natural rights. Intellectual property rights and material property rights have only subtle differences.
The thing that renders them chalk and cheese is not a difference in facility, but a privilege introduced 300 years ago - aka copyright.
But for that unethical artifice we'd all be happy bunnies enjoying our natural rights unabrogated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ?????????
So you're saying that without copyright law, we could enjoy our "natural rights" to say ... music the same way we could enjoy our "natural rights" to oh ... a sandwich? Well I don't think so. After I eat the sandwich I suppose you can have what's left (after I use the facility) but I can' imagine you'd want it.
So just what are these "natural rights" and who says what they are? Some cultures may not have "ownership" as a right (although I'm sure we'll knock that out of them soon enough).
Sorry, I'm rambling here. Maybe reading this post caused brain damage. I hope it's temporary.
Peace,
Rob:-]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: ?????????
So, yes, whilst you can eat the paper a music score is printed on, the process of digestion may transform the material property, but it will simply destroy the intellectual property (rather than transforming it). Material works are transformed by our stomachs. Intellectual works are transformed by our brains (our intellect).
We have a natural right to do what we want with our music scores, whether to reproduce more manuscripts for those of us who like eating them or to perform or transform the music upon them as our aesthetic persuades.
Unethically, some of these natural rights are suspended to privilege publishers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I suppose without copyright laws, we'd all be subject to more click-through, shrink wrap, and traditional licenses.
Usually when I talk to the beatnick copyleft types, the dialog goes as such:
Maynard G. Krebs: Man, these copyright laws prevent my hip cat self from downloading songs without restriction. We have to stop this government intervention, man.
TMP: If we didn't have copyright laws, you'd still be limited by agreement or technology. You still couldn't download songs without restriction.
Maynard G. Krebs: No way man, they'd make laws to prevent that!
TMP: I thought you wanted to stop government intervention?
Maynard G. Krebs: [cerebral cortex undergoes a "ctr-alt-del," while said beatnick stands (or more correctly slouches) in slackjaw silience]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not at all. If you look at the history of content creation, what you would find is the opposite would happen. People would recognize that there's more *value* in freeing up their content. Those that lock it up will find that no one bothers.
So newer, better business models develop, and those models focus on selling the scarce goods that the infinite goods make more valuable:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070503/012939.shtml
Usually when I talk to the beatnick copyleft types, the dialog goes as such:
Well, then you're talking to a different group now. We're not beatniks, and we're not copyleft.
So... maybe try not arguing strawmen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There are no infinate goods
So what valuable in the world is the time it takes to make things. Modern factories have lowered the time it takes to make physical things and, thus, lowered the cost. But the non-recurring engineering (NRE) are part of the "fixed costs". It is mostly the variable costs that have been reduced by the factory. In the case of digital products the NRE is still there but the variable costs have approached zero.
This is that basic economics you've been talking about.
Why shouldn't the creator of something not be have his/her creation protected under the law so the NRE ... the cost of creation ... can be recovered and a profit realized.
Peace,
Rob:-]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Without copyright, the natural right to free speech cannot be alienated by agreement. It is only people's familiarity with the ability for copyright to suspend free speech that lulls them into the belief that contract can do so if copyright is abolished.
Laws do not create rights, they can only protect them or suspend them (with unethical privileges).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Peace,
Rob:-]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are some who deny the validity of intellectual property, and whilst we may both decry the privileges of copyright and patent, those such as I steadfastly argue the self-evidence of natural intellectual property rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Then I have misunderstood you
Peace,
Rob:-]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I assume that you're referring to copyleft as it's been described and adopted by the Free Software Foundation and by the GNU Public License.
In that case you're not reading things very well nor are you understanding what you read.
The GPL uses copyright as well as the license to enforce the terms of the license.
The purpose is to ensure that the ability of a user of a given piece of code has the right to modify, study and improve it.
Should they release it back into the wild it has to retain the license and the freedoms it grants. Also, it's entered into voluntarily.
It is not and never has been about "theft". Nor is it about taking away the rights of anyone to make money off it. Usually through support and other services linked to the code.
Oh, "beatnick" is more properly spelled "beatnik". Nice throw back to the late 50s and early 60s, though.
At least try to get you points straight rather than all mixed up.
It does, however, go a long way to illustrate your considerable biases.
ttfn
John
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Really? Then you haven't looked at much of the research. Any economic monopoly distorts a market such that it can no longer efficiently maximize economic benefit.
the second being that economic benefits is the factor that should be maximized.
What else would you suggest? If economic benefit can be maximized in such a way that it encourages the creation of more content, allows both content creators and consumers to be better off -- then how could that possibly *not* be the factor that is maximized.
The constitution says that copyright is to promote the progress of the science and the useful arts. Progress is determined by economic growth. Something that holds back economic growth, therefore, goes against the purpose of that clause of the constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think I agree with you here, Mike. Certainly, there's more than one way to determine progress, and certainly economic growth doesn't factor into all of them.
Also, I'm pretty sure economic growth was not the primary concern of the founders or of the constitution. IMHO, that's reading back into it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think I agree with you here, Mike. Certainly, there's more than one way to determine progress, and certainly economic growth doesn't factor into all of them.
I've asked on this site repeatedly for a better way to measure progress, and I've yet to hear a single one. To be clear, again, when discussing economic growth, I'm discussing growth in a market that provides *more* opportunities and incentives for the creation of content, a better market for content and a better system for consumers to enjoy the content. A study of economic growth shows you that this is possible -- which is why that's what I look for.
If you can come up with a way to define progress that doesn't include those things, I'd be interested to hear about it.
Also, I'm pretty sure economic growth was not the primary concern of the founders or of the constitution. IMHO, that's reading back into it.
Well, considering that the very idea of economics was born at about the same time as our country, I'd agree that they weren't thinking of it that concretely. But I think it's pretty clear from the language that they chose -- focusing on the progress of science and the useful arts. Note that they didn't say "content" or anything like that. They were specific that it was to be progress of science and useful arts -- both of which are focused on the practical. And, the history of economic growth has shown that the way you promote those things is through growth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think it's pretty clear from the language that they chose -- focusing on the progress of science and the useful arts
Again, if progress means only economic growth ...
Note that they didn't say "content" or anything like that.
I didn't say they did. I know you're defensive on this issue because of the many attacks, so I get why you're jumping at shadows in your reply, but I'm only arguing the points that I'm arguing.
They were specific that it was to be progress of science and useful arts -- both of which are focused on the practical.
Though I don't think it's unreasonable to understand "useful arts" in more than just practical terms. It seems clear that the founders thought similarly, given quotes like this one from Jefferson:
"I like [the declaration of rights] as far as it goes, but I should have been for going further. For instance, the following alterations and additions would have pleased me...... Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding __ years, but for no longer term, and no other purpose..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, if you look historically, all of those *are* correlated with economic growth. So you might not want to knock it so quickly. :)
Though I don't think it's unreasonable to understand "useful arts" in more than just practical terms. It seems clear that the founders thought similarly, given quotes like this one from Jefferson:
Sure, with the clear goal of what Jefferson was saying was to set up a system that can better reward people for those sorts of things. If economic growth provides that system, then you don't need monopolies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know as well as I do that correlation and causation are very different things. Also, just because they correlate doesn't mean you can define one in terms of the others. Therefore, I still hold that progress need not be defined exclusively in economic terms.
the clear goal of what Jefferson was saying was to set up a system that can better reward people for those sorts of things
I would agree that economic concerns relate, but I still am not convinced the founders were thinking only in economic terms. In fact, the actual clause in the Constitution suggests the concern was more with establishing who does and does not have "rights" in regards to creations (for a limited time), solidifying the relationship between creator and creation (for a limited time), and recognizing the incentive of that right for creators, whether or not any actual economic gain comes from it.
In other words, they recognize what many here don't seem to recognize: one of the incentives of copyright isn't economic at all, it's the assurance that you, as creator, can have exclusive rights to what you create (for a limited time). There's no guarantee of economic gain, just guarantee of limited control over your creations. Believe it or not, that's important to creators, sometimes more so than the money they might make from it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And yet you fail to provide a different definition of progress.
The reason that economic growth is the proper one is that the focus is on providing the best possible incentives for the creation of new content and ideas. And as we all hopefully know by now, the best way to encourage a market is to remove regulations that encourage monopolies to let the market decide.
I would agree that economic concerns relate, but I still am not convinced the founders were thinking only in economic terms.
They were clearly thinking about *incentives* and that's what economics is. Understanding the incentives of trade.
In fact, the actual clause in the Constitution suggests the concern was more with establishing who does and does not have "rights" in regards to creations (for a limited time),
For the purpose of creating an *incentive*.
recognizing the incentive of that right for creators, whether or not any actual economic gain comes from it.
I don't see how you can have a non-economic incentive (note that economic does not mean *money*). There must be *some* reason why the content or hte idea is created, meaning that there is some marginal benefit to the creator to do so. Again, it need not be money -- but that benefit is in "economic" terms.
In other words, they recognize what many here don't seem to recognize: one of the incentives of copyright isn't economic at all, it's the assurance that you, as creator, can have exclusive rights to what you create (for a limited time).
But that *is* an economic benefit. Economics is not just about money.
There's no guarantee of economic gain, just guarantee of limited control over your creations. Believe it or not, that's important to creators, sometimes more so than the money they might make from it.
Again, you seem confused. Economics is not just about money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Um, what? I provided multiple examples in my previous comment. Cram (a few comments ago) provided supporting examples as well.
Economics is not just about money.
As a discipline and theory, that's true, but the discussions here (perhaps only in the comments from others) seem to focus on money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The most obvious flaws are in your response above:
"No clear economic indication"
Sorry, but stuffing your ears only enhances your own perspective on an argument from silence - no one elses.
"Economic benefits is the factor that should be maximized"
Yes, if we are talking about corporate policy, competitive strategy, and marketing tactics. ABSOLUTELY NOT if we are just talking about the law. Come on, you really expect to sell the notion that the should exist to line the pockets of the wealthy.
Let's clarify: The law should encourage businesses to take the proper steps to maximize wealth within an appropriate framework of accountability. That framework should include accountability to the rights of people. The prioritization of those rights should follow something along these lines: 1. inalienable rights 2. other natural rights 3. artificial rights - and these only in the capacity that reason and good sense dictate such an artifice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The record labels have become irrelevant. They are used to distribute physical copies of an album. Since the cost has dropped to free with the advent of the Internet and cd-burners for those wishing a physical copy, they should not be selling any services if the buyer looks at all options. The only problem is that bands are either stuck in licenses still, or are unwilling or afraid of how to work the new market.
It's simple economics. The record labels are suing to make an artificial scarcity when if they didn't, it would be an unlimited good and as thus would have a price of 0.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Most of the arguments...can be applied to real property"
Yes, most of them can! That is, except for the most central argument:
Whenever a copy is made,A unilaterally non-exclusive replication in both essence and substance of the so-called property occurs . When a copy is then distributed, the nature and form of the copy is has been transferred in full to the recipient without any transaction being enacted upon the original whatsoever.
This point begs several questions:
Is the right to reproduction and distribution inherent in the artifact of origin? or else, is the right fundamentally severed from the artifact?
If the originator no longer has possession of an original or a copy, how then might the copyright be preserved if the right is severed from the artifact? To which of the rightful copy-holders can the originator go in order to demand reproduction for his benefit? If no such copy-holder complies with those demands, how might the separate rights be transferred? Shall the right to make further copies be forever at an impasse?
If an exact copy, per se, were made - so as to be entirely fungible with the original and the two were then co-mingled, which may be retained and which distributed so that the originator retains his rights?
If the copy in question is emblazoned upon the mind of an individual, then can those thoughts be imprisoned for nothing more than the cause of monopoly?
On this point the existing law stands in complete contradiction to nature itself. There is no reconciliation between the two. The nature of the thing cannot be the question here.
Then the only question remaining is whether and what it is reasonable to impose the originator's rights upon the natural liberty of the copy-holder and what is the basis for withholding. On this point the original purpose of the law as it was created has become obsolete. There is no longer benefit to the originator to withhold rights from the copy-holder. The problem is that we have allowed ourselves to be low-balled by our own reasoning.
In order to promote art and productive commerce, we have arbitrarily created rights that do not exist naturally (and have imposed upon freedoms that do so exist), as we once deemed reasonable. Now that those reasons (or at least the weight of their claim over and above what is natural)have been superseded by technological advancement, we have, purely by the construct of social cognitive dissonance, clung to a fabricated reality beyond reason.
The "complainers" aren't complaining about anything that has to do with taking. There has NEVER been a question of taking. Within the concept of "copyright infringement" initial distribution has occurred, at least presumptively. Nothing is being taken that was not already given.
In fact the natural right to reproduction and distribution lay with the form and stuff of any of all of the copies of an original. For both original and copy are, by nature original. Copyright has no further value to us than to inhibit our natural creativity - the same creativity for which we first fabricated copyright.
I'm not taking what is yours. I'm taking what you gave me under the mistaken presumption that you somehow kept some part of it, which in fact, both you and I know that you did not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Second, I've always found "hifalutin" talk to be either 1) a disguise for lack of knowledge or 2) a subtle threat that "you should listen to me because I'm smarter than you." Sadly, it only works on the gullible.
You get clearer in that last sentence, but seriously ... don't try so hard and we might care to get your point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm sorry, my time was limited or I would have written something shorter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I quite enjoyed your prose (and your arguments). :)
Stick to your own style that lets you write with greatest ease and eloquence, and don't allow yourself to be co-opted by less appreciative members of your audience. :-/
But, yup, a less ambiguous name would be the icing on the cake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Either you're a promoter pursuing a large audience, or you're an artist pursuing your art.
Sometimes you wear both hats, each on a different day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If your purpose is to persuade (which is what we're about here), then clarity and concision are important ... and are part of the quality. A good argument expressed poorly might still be a good argument, but it looses much of its persuasive force.
Time for more coffee or something!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't argue here to persuade, but to learn and understand. Nor do I seek the largest audience.
It is possible that Wordy Jason is not trying to find a larger audience. It is possible he is not striving to maximise the persuasive force of his argument.
At least consider that these things may be possible. That then removes the persuasive force from your argument that his '"hifalutin" talk' is invariably either disguised ignorance or domineering pretentiousness.
I'm sorry, is this a five minute argument or the full half-hour?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
At minimum, the speaker is attempting to convince the other to at least attend to his speech ... otherwise why speak? Self-speech is a method of self-persuasion (or, truly lacking that, then insanity) ... a way of "seeing what I think" so that I might consider the merits of it. This is (to me at least) self-evident.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"In order to promote art and productive commerce, we have arbitrarily created rights that do not exist naturally (and have imposed upon freedoms that do so exist), as we once deemed reasonable. Now that those reasons (or at least the weight of their claim over and above what is natural) have been superseded by technological advancement, we have, purely by the construct of social cognitive dissonance, clung to a fabricated reality beyond reason."
I remain unpersuaded by your argument that this speech or the voice or language in which it is spoken is indicative of either pretentiousness or disguised ignorance.
I grant you that if it were phrased more simply it would be more readily digested by a larger audience, but that is not without cost.
Instead of berating the author for not taking this burden upon himself, you can instead digest it yourself, rephrase it, and then impart it to the larger audience that you apparently pursue.
After all, we are trying to encourage the sharing of each other's speech and the building upon it, whether to simplify or to elaborate, to promote or to explain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Fail? Sure whatever, maybe i'll try again later when the wife doesn't need a cuddle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Alot of my Photoshop brushes and patterns come to me free from people who don't care what I use them for. They are happy to make and distribute them.
You have artists giving away music for little to nothing, photographers and artists paying to join sharing networks so they can share thier art for nothing, writers across the entire globe writing for nothing... Even this blog is free for you to use and quote and enjoy. So, no, I don't think the only people who have issues with the current system are just leeches.
Maybe we remember when you could quote a news article, or play a song. When bands played for the love of music, not for the love of money. When artists painted beauty and not cash. When writers wrote because they had to write or explode.
The point of copyright is money. The point of art is enjoyment and/or satisfaction. How do you expect a seller of enjoyment/satisfaction to make enough money to live comfortably by limiting the enjoyment/satisfaction that thier customers can have?
The problem is not that we are refusing to pay. It's that we don't have to. The AP is scared because bloggers give away what they want to charge for. Record labels are scared because bands want to give away what they charge for. It seems to me that the leeches are the ones that are the most afraid of these changes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What freebie did I take that wasn't released as such? Brushes and patterns clearly marked as free to use by the authors? Music offered for download for free from the creators and thier licensees? Software from download.com that is (once again) clearly marked as free to download and use by the author of the software? Writing that was offered for free on the Internet, both in html and .pdf form?
What in the world are you talking about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If a content creator does not make his or her content freely available, then that is their choice as well.
The emphasis is on the word "choice". That is for the creator to decide, and not a user who without authority makes that choice for them.
BTW, I post photos to a stocksite (SXC) with the proviso that users are free to do whatever they want. Make money selling exact copies? Fine with me. Place them on mugs and other cafe press items? Fine with me as well. The important thing to note is that I made this choice. It was not done for me by someone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"No, the problem is that you are refusing to pay by purposely availing yourself of a freebie that you know good and well was not released as such."
I ask again: What freebie did I take that wasn't released as such?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright Aggrandizement
The problem with this statement is that the copyright holders have been aggrandizing their so-called property rights. This comes at the diminishment of the property rights of the content users. Yes, content users also have property rights to the use of content they have bought.
We simply should not accept the copyright discussion from the viewpoint of the content producer. Instead we should view it from a level playing field that also recognizes the property right of the content user to use that content.
Copyright was meant to be a LIMITED monopoly, once it is over, you have a right to use that content anyway you like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright Aggrandizement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright Aggrandizement
That may be your reasoning, but it is not mine nor many of us who oppose copyright extension so please don't superimpose your reasoning on us.
I oppose copyright extension for a very straightforward reason: copyright's sole purpose is to encourage the creation of content. It is a bargain made between the state and the creator: the state offers up a gov't granted and backed monopoly in exchange for the content being created, with the knowledge that it eventually goes into the public domain.
Yet copyright extension that applies to works already created is changing the deal *after* the deal has already been struck. Obviously the deal worked originally: because the content creator figured it was worthwhile to create the content. If it weren't a good enough deal then s/he wouldn't have done so. So why do we sweeten it after the fact at the expense of not just the public, but also anyone who would make better content built on the backs of the earlier content?
Finally, history has shown that creative content is almost always built on the work of those who came before. Yet, with copyright, we SLOW down that process, by making it more expensive and cumbersome to do so. Every time we increase copyright, we make it that much more difficult for new content to be created. That goes against the very meaning and purpose of copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright Aggrandizement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Live performance is what really matters, as a musical work will be performed differently each time, either in a recording studio or on stage.
The future will have music artists charging a higher premium than even now on live performance, to make up for the lack of income that was generated via sales of recorded music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Should I be allowed to record some of your music directly and use it in my own production? Can I use thematic elements from your music without your permission? How about a chord progression? Or a chord? How about a series of notes? How about a pair of two notes? Where are you going to draw the line?
Actually, the line has been drawn, painstakingly and over a long period of time, in a way which maximizes the useful control left to the creator while precluding him from utterly restricting everyone else from touching the work and thus maximizing the total benefit to society. It is called fair use. Look it up.
By releasing your music to the world, you unleash a plague. When we hear it, it infests our minds and changes us forever (if it is good). We cannot help but be inspired by that music or incorporate it into our lives, since it has incorporated itsself into us.
You WILL NOT use that to wield power over us. We reject that, totally and altogether. As a generous thank you for having brightened our lives, we will allow you to enjoy some special privileges related to that work for a certain period of time. And now it is your turn to thank us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You are in an extreme minority on that one. Here's why it's a bad idea and doesn't make sense and is also against the very purpose of copyright in the first place:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070521/015928.shtml
The future will have music artists charging a higher premium than even now on live performance, to make up for the lack of income that was generated via sales of recorded music.
Actually, there's little evidence to support that (other than the expected inflation). What's happening instead is that more musicians can now make a living performing music, thanks to better tools for creating, distributing and promoting music -- and that has made the market more competitive. Those who try to raise prices find it's increasingly difficult to do so reasonably. But that doesn't mean that they make less money. That's because the free distribution and promotion of music means they can build much larger fanbases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I presume a most misguided usage of words? If not, it speaks volumes about your viewpoint concerning music.
How do you define the release of music? I give a recorded copy of my composition to one person to listen to. They then distribute it to 10 of their friends, and then those give it to ten of their friends, etc. Am I to take it that I'm responsible for the distribution of my music to others. Does that include people selling copies too?
"You WILL NOT use that to wield power over us"
If you read my post carefully (which you obviously didn't) you'd note my views about ownership of music, which you conveniently bypassed or ignored.
"maximizing the total benefit to society. It is called fair use. Look it up."
I'm quite familiar with fair use and fair abuse, as well.
I'm most interested to know what your own interpretation of "maximizing the total benefit to society." is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I define release in terms of the plague. Once it is unleashed, it is released.
Of course I read your stupid post, I responded directly to it. You said you want 100% control over your music. Since we have assimilated it, you want control over us. That is the power you will not wield.
I havent defined maximizing total benefit to society, that is the result of a long process of social deliberation, but I assure you that creating a climate of total fear of accidentally misusing ideas which have polluted your mind according to the 100% controlling desires of the ideas' originators is not part of a system blessing society with maximum benefit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's nothing wrong with that at all.
I've created music that has been used by others who claimed authorship of my creation. That kind of use is all wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This, however, is an opinion, and therefore cannot be more valid than someone else saying "yes, there is something wrong with that." Perhaps, in fact, if the author says "yes, there is something wrong with that" with respect to use of his creation, his opinion is more valid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
economic growth and arts
US - Plenty of economic growth, great strides in arts
Singapore - Plenty of economic growth, little in arts
Iran - Screwed up economy, political and social instability, great movies
Pakistan - Screwed up economy, political and social instability, zilch in arts
France - Plenty of economic growth, great strides in arts
Saudi Arabia - Fabulously rich, zilch in arts
Enough said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]