The Copyright Lobotomy: How Intellectual Property Makes Us Pretend To Be Stupid
from the or:-how-to-build-an-intellectual-cage dept
Here are two words that have no business hanging out together: "used MP3s." If you know anything about how computers work, that concept is intellectually offensive. Same goes for "ebook lending", "digital rental" and a host of other terms that have emerged from the content industries' desperate scramble to do the impossible: adapt without changing.
These concepts are all completely imaginary, and yet we treat them as if they are real, and have serious discussions about every last detail of how they function — like a debate about the best mutant superpower, but with multimillion dollar lawsuits. Copyright necessitates that we all pretend we don't know any better. It makes us act stupid.
Take "used MP3s" for example. The idea is instantly nonsensical, and proposing it seems on par with asking how all those people fit inside the television. A "used MP3" is indistinguishable from a "new" one, and on the internet there's no such thing as an individual, discrete copy of an MP3 that gets "moved" from one person to another anyway. Speaking even more broadly, a "file" is not a "thing" at all — it's a concept that we use to help organize and visualize the even more abstract concept of "information" in many different places and states, whether magnetically inscribed on a hard disk platter or being transmitted via radio waves (not to mention the internal operation of a computer, where pieces of the information are shunted around between multiple different components and caches).
A "file" is an analogy, and like all analogies, it's incomplete. It breaks down when taken too far, and then it must be discarded, because analogies only exist for our convenience. "Moving" a file is also an analogy — in reality, we are copying it and then deleting the original. Even deleting a file is usually an analogy — the data is still recoverable, the computer has just been instructed to pretend it's not there anymore.
The purpose of these analogies is not to impose limitations on reality. We don't give up the ability to copy a file because we simulated the ability to move it. We don't have to pretend information degrades like physical objects just because we chose to conceptualize it that way. If we want to describe something as "the size of 10 football fields", we don't demand there be gridiron lines painted on it. There's a reason that stubbornly sticking with analogies is referred to as torture, and every discussion about "used files" or the difference between moving and copying is another turn of the screw.
Because of copyright, we are constantly asked to pretend that these analogies are binding. When we "lend" a Kindle ebook, we must pretend that we gave a thing away and don't have it for a while, when in fact our device is just refusing to let us access it. When a library wants to lend out ebooks, they must pretend they have a "limited number of copies available." When we buy software with an activation code, we must pretend that we "only bought one" and thus can only have it in one place at a time. When we rent a digital movie, we must pretend that we "have to give it back". We have to pretend we're stupid and that our devices have limitations which don't actually exist.
But here's the real kicker: the moment there might be any benefit to the consumer, the content companies toss the analogy out the window, and suddenly want to talk about reality. Thus you get things like ReDigi, the would-be used MP3 market that recently lost in court. ReDigi attempted to make MP3s simulate discrete items by enforcing the analogy of "moving a file" using a monitoring system, such that when you sold an MP3 to someone, it would make sure you deleted your own copy. Though we always suspected it was doomed, it was at least rather fascinating from a legal and policy perspective, potentially creating a clash between copyright and first sale rights. After all, if we are expected to treat digital files like physical property, we should at least be getting the rights that come with that.
But this time the record labels wanted to focus on the fact that there's no such thing as moving a file, and pointed out that ReDigi involved making copies whether or not it also involved deleting other copies — and the judge agreed. This is actually correct, technically and realistically — just don't tell them that next time, when it doesn't benefit them and they're back to calling infringement theft. As if to underline their masterful doublethink when it comes to the nature of property, the labels are all about having their cake and eating it too.
ReDigi is hardly the only example. We've written before about the insane situation with TV and movie streaming, where companies do things like set up a warehouse full of separate DVD players that stream from individual discs, or install a separate TV antenna on the same rooftop for every customer who wants an online stream. They are forced to willfully ignore technological capabilities, engineering principles and simple common sense just to conform to all these broken analogies — and they still face massive opposition from content owners and broadcasters every step of the way.
The real issue, when you get down to it, is that copyright itself is imaginary. A "song" or a "novel" is just as analogical as a "file". Originally, copyright law was very concerned with separating the expression of an idea from the idea itself, and in theory that's still the case, but in practice the line has proven almost impossible to draw. So first we conceptualize an abstract thing like "content" as discrete pieces, then we conceptualize all the abstract rights associated with those pieces, and then we conceptualize the discrete units of distribution and ownership within those rights.
These are all imaginary concepts, built on top of other imaginary concepts, built on top of still more imaginary concepts. It's turtles all the way down.
This does not necessarily mean that there's no place for copyright in the world. But in order for it to function, we have to remember that it's an analogy — it's something chosen and used to achieve a purpose, not something that binds and shapes reality, or that we must conform to at the expense of our better judgement. Originally, copyright was just that: a choice by society to employ the analogies of ownership and property in limited, specially-tailored ways in order to achieve a desired result — a flourishing intellectual and artistic economy. Today, copyright is worlds away from what it was then, and it does more to hinder that goal than help it... but many people seem to have forgotten that it's a just a tool, and we can always put it down.
In all the discussion about the various reasons people give for violating copyright, I think there's one that goes unmentioned: a lot of people just refuse to pretend to be stupid.
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
Filed Under: analogies, copyright, intellectual property, reality, services
Companies: aereo, redigi
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I can't sell a person's transformation from an idea to a canvas, word processor, song, or film. I can only do so once the transformation is turned into actual property, which I can hold, sell, trade, lend, etc.
If you want to talk about intellectually offensive uses of the digital era, start with "intellectual property" and how it's the very reason why there's a copyright law to begin with.
People always assume their ideas are protected, simply because they are transferred into tangible property, which is then wrapped in a multitude of draconian laws.
Sorry, Leigh, but you dropped the ball on this one by using the most offensive term out there.
Other than that, I concur with the position. It's rather telling people will placate these issues as though there's some reason behind why it should cost them $5 for a "24 hour rental" of a digital file which can be infinitely reproduced.
At least Blockbuster had a reason to charge that much. Not only did the industry blackmail their profits, but they only had a limited number of copies on hand, per store, so it was a perfect setup for bilking customers who didn't want to spend $20 (or more!) for the movie.
Look where they are now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you think intellectual property in terms of attribution and not ownership then things get clearer and copyright can be built upon sane concepts. I'm fairly sure Leigh would agree with that much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No one puts value into a works other than me, for it is I who deem them valuable.
This concept is lost, especially on many artists out there, who feel it's their responsibility to place this attribution on their works.
Hence why they seem to try and control it.
Some artists are figuring out this internet thing can build this attribution for them, but it's still bogus to call it "intellectual property", as though it's a tangible product requiring a say to distribute as the artist sees fit.
It's why I hate CC licenses, which is being used as some ridiculous tool to pretend the artist has control over their works.
Attribution once had another value, back when slaves were used in early America. That didn't turn out well, either.
Fans will support what they like, whether it be sharing works with others to build an audience, or financially.
I'm getting pretty sick and tired of artists telling me what I can, and can't do, with their "property".
I've said it once before: if they don't want people sharing it and dislike it when we break their "rules", keep their works to themselves.
This solves every problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ie: if we remove copyright today I would not be surprised to see the labels trying to sell what they have without giving a shit to the artists. The complexity may be in how to define what's commecial exploitation and what's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Potential
Copyright is nothing but evil and greed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Phew! I was beginning to think you might have missed out on your lobotomy, and had enough of a brain left to qualify as a copyright abolitionist.
Or is that just the Techdirt "We support copyright, but it has issues" line you have to toe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I know some people think we are equivocating by criticizing so many aspects of copyright then saying we still support it in theory -- but it's not equivocation, it's a genuine expression of our opinion on what is, ultimately, a rather odd topic to discuss. "Copyright" has been around so long, and undergone so many changes, that it's a rather imprecise term -- there's copyright meaning the basic principle (something I feel to be potentially problematic, but not necessarily useless if employed correctly) and copyright meaning any number of specific copyright schemes that exist around the world today and throughout history (most of which I think are completely, irrecoverably broken)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The re is no principle apart from the church and state wanting to control the dissemination of information, and those who enjoy the consequent licenses or monopolies wanting to keep them.
It may be difficult to imagine that copyright wasn't created by a bunch of kind-hearted philanthropists for the good of mankind, but that's the red/blue pill decision you're going to have to take one day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can insist that this is a "red/blue pill decision" but I disagree. I think it is more nuanced than that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) Copyright's original purpose was to benefit society. Any issues it has that may be argued depart from this purpose can be resolved, such that it continues to benefit society.
2) Copyright's original purpose was to benefit the state, through effective control of a beholden press. Now that the people are the press, it is no longer providing effective control, however much it is enhanced or draconian its enforcement. Totalitarianism is the state's recourse.
One of these pills is rather bitter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you literally run through what copyright does, it's obvious that creating a monopoly doesn't cause more work to be produced. When we look at monopolies, we are seeing an inefficient market at play. So why tolerate inefficiency when we know it makes the public worse off?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think we mostly agree, but I don't think copyright can serve a useful purpose that can't be served by different methods with less harm to society.
Copyright is an option that relies on taking a portion of everyone's rights in their tangible property and giving them to a select few as priviledge's.
It doesn't benefit society as a whole, but only that small section of society that is gifted with the monopoly because people will create with or without copyright, they always have and will. it is part of human nature.
Aside from self funding and loans we have options like Kickstarter for funding projects if there is enough interest in them.
I am sure other variations on the threshold pledge system could be used too, and patronage is still viable as well.
In reality patronage is still the most used model to date in my opinion, it is just that the sponsors are normally multi-national corporations rather than wealthy and influential people in this day and age.
so I believe there is no need for copyright to fill and thus no benefit to the public from it.
From what i can tell wherever copyright has been granted it has always been relentlessly expanded through lobbying by the people who benefit from it using the monopoly rents they obtain from it.
So no matter how benign it begins I can't see it not ending up where it is today in the longterm.
Where in my opinion it is probably stifling more art than it is responsible for incentivizing, as well as being used as a tool for censorship and to gain control over more and more of people's tangible property amongst other things
Just my 2 cents,
Adam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In a theoretical setting, sure. If I were to try to design a society from the ground up, copyright would not be a part of it. But if we're talking practically, about real -- if drastic -- reform in the real world, then I think some form of copyright (one that may bear almost no similarities to the current regime) may still have some life in it as a useful tool, though it has to be massively reduced from where it's at now. It may still be the best way to protect creators from genuine unfair harm, at least during the transition to something better.
If the world can actually figure out a way to get rid of copyright altogether, that would be amazing -- but even though this post is somewhat philosophical, I wanted to keep a dose of practicality in there, and the practical fact is that copyright is not going to disappear. And I think it's possible to employ its underlying principle much more responsibly than we are doing today, in a way that has a net benefit or at least a less dismal net loss — and maybe that's not the endgame, but it would still be a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There, that's the flaw in your reasoning, you think that creators must be protected from harm. What harm? The only harm I see is self inflicted by using business models that are incompatible with reality. That's the gross error of the content industry, they think they can sell content like a product. They try to get people to believe it's a discreet unit of property that is exclusive to the author, utterly unique and disconnected from other expressions. It's not. Content, of all kinds, is speech. Every image, text, sound recording, game, or moving picture is communication of an idea from the author's mind to the audience. But like every idea, it must be transmitted to another mind in order to continue to live and grow.
The people that truly deserve to be rewarded are those that execute ideas into expressions that transmit those ideas to the rest of us. It's the action of building an expression that is what is valuable. An idea without execution is worthless, ideas are myriad. The labor people put into generating ideas into expressions that touch minds and change them is what we must value, what we must reward. The ideas belong to everyone, they are not a piece of property to be owned. They came from the multitudes of generations before us, they are our common heritage and they belong to no single person. Thus, it is beyond illogical to reward those that put in the work to create with the exclusive ownership, temporary or not, of that which is our common wealth. It is wrong to take what belongs to the many and grant it to the few all in the daft misconception that it will be of a net benefit to the culture they are robbing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If copyright were to disappear tomorrow, a lot of artists would be taken advantage of.
Say an author, one who gives all his work away for free and allows others to redistribute his work, has lots of his fans asking to buy collectors editions of his books as gifts -- so he calls up some printers, or plans to start a Kickstarter. What is stopping the printers from all simply refusing to work with him, taking his work, printing exactly what he wanted themselves, and selling it at a lower price than he could ever manage?
What if a band that plans to release a new album freely to everyone under a PD license only wants to sell one thing: the true scarcity of first release. Some blog will get to be the first to post the album, after which anyone can repost it anywhere. That's a valuable thing. But how could they shop it out to blogs if any of those blogs could just say screw 'em and go ahead and post it?
Obviously such a hypotheticals do not warrant the system of total control that we have today -- in fact, many of these situations could probably be handled using contracts and unfair competition laws. However, it is such hypotheticals that lead me to say there may be a role for some form of copyright in a functioning system -- not as a means of total control, but as a means of giving creators some marketplace footing in a world that is currently dominated by large, moneyed publishers.
As I noted before, if we were talking about building a society from the ground up, I wouldn't necessarily make this same argument. But in the world as it is, I feel that not only is improving copyright more realistic than abolishing it, it's actually a necessary step along the way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There it is, you're going right back into thinking of art as a product. You have to let go of that if you're ever to find your way past the conflict between your business model and infringement.
The answer to your hypothetical question is that you don't do that. The value has already been given away in the initial creation of the works by giving them out to the public domain. What the artist should have done is start a Kickstarter to fund that work and offer a hand-signed printed copy as a tier reward and release the work in a digital format. That would be the smarter avenue and I just came up with that off the top of my head.
"What if a band that plans to release a new album freely to everyone under a PD license only wants to sell one thing: the true scarcity of first release. Some blog will get to be the first to post the album, after which anyone can repost it anywhere. That's a valuable thing. But how could they shop it out to blogs if any of those blogs could just say screw 'em and go ahead and post it?"
That's not a true scarcity. The true scarcity is the time and labor it took to create it. This is another example of misapplication of business models.
"Obviously such a hypotheticals do not warrant the system of total control that we have today -- in fact, many of these situations could probably be handled using contracts and unfair competition laws. However, it is such hypotheticals that lead me to say there may be a role for some form of copyright in a functioning system -- not as a means of total control, but as a means of giving creators some marketplace footing in a world that is currently dominated by large, moneyed publishers."
If you plan your business model around providing the service of creating content instead of around the idea that you're providing a product, you'll have no need for such laws. Nobody can make you work without pay and no one can take from you the work that you haven't done. So it remains to be seen why copyright would enter into this in the slightest degree.
"As I noted before, if we were talking about building a society from the ground up, I wouldn't necessarily make this same argument. But in the world as it is, I feel that not only is improving copyright more realistic than abolishing it, it's actually a necessary step along the way."
If you have to build a society from the ground up to make your ideas work, then your ideas are either flawed or you haven't thoroughly examined the alternatives. The problem lies in that you haven't realized what business you are actually in. It's not a product industry, it's a service industry. You have to leverage your ability and willingness to create content, not the control of access to it. And that's the folly of the content industry, as I have said before. Controlling access to something that is easily accessible through current technical means is doomed to failure as it has been demonstrated many times. If you build a business model around a failed concept like that, you'll find yourself spending most of your time trying to plug leaks in a ship with more holes than Swiss cheese. I'd put better odds on the Titanic than I would copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I agree with all your points about copyright and the adaptation of business models. But if you are utterly refusing to entertain any notion of copyright other than total abolition, then you are not holding this conversation in the real world.
The only statement I have made here is that I am not prepared to completely rule out some form of creative control as a potentially useful mechanism, moving forward, in this world, while trying to curb the bigger problems created by copyright today. That should not be a controversial statement, and your insistence on making it so strikes me as overly stubborn.
I agree with your position philosophically, but it's you who I'm accusing of requiring a theoretical society built from the ground up to make your ideas work. In today's world, the real world, even massive reform is still going to involve some form of copyright for a long time to come, even if one day we manage to do away with it altogether. Outright refusing to entertain any notion of copyright is not very productive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You obviously realise something doesn't quite add up with respect to copyright, but you still have a lot of indoctrination to divest yourself of.
Fundamentally you have a choice of believing that people should not enjoy their cultural liberty, in order that publishing corporations can enjoy monopolies (and pay artists a pittance), or that both artists and their audiences should enjoy their cultural liberty to share and build upon each others' work, mankind's cultural commonwealth - as we have done from 500,000BC to 1709AD.
If slavery was abolished, cotton pickers would be left in the gutter to starve. We need some form of slavery to avoid a human tragedy on a colossal scale.
Copyright is just an anachronistic 18th century privilege, no longer effective in protecting a state granted reproduction monopoly. It's now just a sniper rifle used by psychopathic corporations to futilely persuade the plebs not to join the swelling ranks of their pirate fellows.
You're on the edge, the fence, caught in a quandary between accepting your programming that copyright is good, and your intellect telling you it's a crock'o'shite. If you stay in this situation too long you learn to live with this doublethink and become a ghost trapped in the netherworld "I cannot accept that, contrary to my upbringing and the opinions of those I respect, copyright is not good and necessary to society, but I find this law bizarrely unviable"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm afraid it may be you two who are two indoctrinated into your own way of thinking to even listen to what I'm saying.
Anyway, good luck getting anywhere with these arguments. If I understand you both correctly, there is nothing worth talking about with copyright other than total abolition. It's that, or nada.
So if that's so, why are you even still here? What is there still to talk about? What could you possibly find interesting on this blog? We are all about approaching this realistically, and looking at the many facets of the copyright question. You're living in a fantasy land.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now you're getting annoyed that we haven't agreed with you and you're playing the "expert" card, accusing us of being ignorant and dogmatic. You have the audacity to tell us we don't know as much as you in order to dismiss our arguments. Bad form.
You're right, there's nothing to talk about in regards to reducing copyright terms when there are solutions that are workable in complete independence of copyright. We can, however, still talk about business models that would function without the existence of copyright. We can apply adaptive business models right now, independent of copyright.
Why are we still here? Because not agreeing with your point of view doesn't negate the value in coming here and discussing these issues. Your viewpoint isn't sacrosanct. This site isn't about compromising on, or preserving, copyright. It's about finding a real solution, even if that means abolition. I personally think it's adaptive business models and abolition because I have good reason to think so. Others think differently. But I am willing to defend my viewpoint and if I find fault in yours, I will point it out, as you should mine. If you can't discuss alternative solutions, I think it's you that may be wasting your time here and it's rather petty of you that you imply that we don't belong here because our viewpoints don't align with yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That really sums it all up there. I strongly disagree with that sentiment: there's plenty to talk about.
Your only objection seems to be that I will talk about things other than just abolishing copyright. Well yeah, I do find that annoying.
This site isn't about compromising on, or preserving, copyright. It's about finding a real solution, even if that means abolition.
Again, disagree. Yes, part of it is about finding a real long-term solution -- another part of it is about compromising and working within the system that we're stuck with to reduce the damage being done every day. Again, if you disagree, fine -- but I still say that is refusing to live in reality.
If you can't discuss alternative solutions, I think it's you that may be wasting your time here and it's rather petty of you that you imply that we don't belong here because our viewpoints don't align with yours.
I am trying to discuss alternative solutions. You are only interested in discussing one alternative solution -- abolishing copyright. I'm not saying you don't belong -- I'm saying I'm genuinely baffled by your response. It's not as if this is the first, or the tenth, or even the hundredth time that Techdirt has opposed copyright abolition -- and very, very few of our posts pitch abolition as an immediate solution. And yet on this thread, you are acting like I'm a deluded idiot for considering anything other than abolition. Why? Doesn't make any sense to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know what? I don't really care if copyright gets abolished so long as people realize it's not helping and just establish business models that are independent from copyright. That's what I'm really on about. Abolition would just be a kick in the pants for the content industry to get busy on finding a better model instead of relying on it as a crutch.
"Again, disagree. Yes, part of it is about finding a real long-term solution -- another part of it is about compromising and working within the system that we're stuck with to reduce the damage being done every day. Again, if you disagree, fine -- but I still say that is refusing to live in reality."
Again, I think we can flat out ignore copyright as a way to change things, if people just refuse to rely on it. Real solutions don't care if copyright exists or not.
"I am trying to discuss alternative solutions. You are only interested in discussing one alternative solution -- abolishing copyright. I'm not saying you don't belong -- I'm saying I'm genuinely baffled by your response. It's not as if this is the first, or the tenth, or even the hundredth time that Techdirt has opposed copyright abolition -- and very, very few of our posts pitch abolition as an immediate solution. And yet on this thread, you are acting like I'm a deluded idiot for considering anything other than abolition. Why? Doesn't make any sense to me."
You're trying to discuss alternatives, as long as they aren't about copyright abolition. I'm saying copyright isn't part of the solution, but only so long as people actually use it. If they don't use it, then it has no negative effect on culture, but it's application does. That's what I'm against. I'd like it if nobody could have a monopoly on speech for any amount of time. Abolition would be the fastest path to that, but voluntary refusal to use copyright would be just fine too.
Alright, I have copyright reform for you to consider. "To promote the progress of the arts and sciences, congress shall make no law that shall abridge the people's right to share and distribute culture and knowledge freely." That's my copyright reform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You keep citing examples where copyright is still necessary and I keep pointing out how they can be solved without copyright, so whom is really being absolutist and stubborn? You're trying to defend an indefensible position.
My ideas don't need a custom built society, it can happen right now, today, in spite of copyright. All that's needed are people to change their attitudes (and their business models) and realize what this industry really is. Adapting business models away from copyright reliance is what you need to make the abolition of copyright the logical next step. The solution to this all starts with a voluntary decision to change and organizations like Kickstarter are the mechanism for that change. They are an opportunity to succeed without reliance on copyright. It's your novelty to your audience that makes you a success. Monopolies won't help you whether you're great or completely unremarkable.
I think we've already established that the problem is the business model (at least I have) and copyright only exists to enable that one particular faulty business model. So, it's pragmatic to say that the solution to the problem is to adapt the business model to reality. When you're no longer using a business model that requires copyright to function, you no longer need copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No. I am not saying those are examples where copyright is necessary. I am saying those are examples of where copyright may be the best workable solution, at least in the short term.
Copyright is huge and far-reaching. Abolition would cause chaos. Would that chaos eventually shake itself out into something better than we have now? Yes, probably. But in the mean time it would do all sorts of damage, some we might perceive as "deserved" and a lot we might not, and none of it ideal compared to a more thoughtful transition.
I think it's arrogant to claim that, because there are some fundamental problems with the principles copyright, abolition is the only solution worth considering, regardless of what the immediate practical implications are, and regardless of the fact that abolition is not a realistic near-term goal.
From your point of view, wouldn't the vast majority of people who participated in the SOPA protests be wrong, too? Many of them were not in favour of abolition -- merely opposed to expansion. Was successfully protesting SOPA a waste of time that should have been spent fruitlessly campaigning for abolition?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I suggested a solution that has no reliance on copyright at all, demonstrating that copyright wasn't really a workable solution, only a marginal effort.
"Copyright is huge and far-reaching. Abolition would cause chaos. Would that chaos eventually shake itself out into something better than we have now? Yes, probably. But in the mean time it would do all sorts of damage, some we might perceive as "deserved" and a lot we might not, and none of it ideal compared to a more thoughtful transition."
Sometimes, when the kids can't stop fighting over a toy, it's best to just take the toy away. They might throw a tantrum over it, but they'll get over it eventually.
"I think it's arrogant to claim that, because there are some fundamental problems with the principles copyright, abolition is the only solution worth considering, regardless of what the immediate practical implications are, and regardless of the fact that abolition is not a realistic near-term goal."
“You don't stick a knife in a man's back nine inches and then pull it out six inches and say you're making progress..."
The same goes for copyright. It's not progress if copyright is still being used to censoring people.
"From your point of view, wouldn't the vast majority of people who participated in the SOPA protests be wrong, too? Many of them were not in favour of abolition -- merely opposed to expansion. Was successfully protesting SOPA a waste of time that should have been spent fruitlessly campaigning for abolition?"
No, opposing greater censorship is always a good strategy. I'm not saying that doing nothing other abolition is wrong, I'm saying it's wrong to pretend the mere reduction is not part of the solution. We should definitely oppose expansion, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that there's any form of copyright that's a "solution." As long as copyright is allowing censorship through exclusive rights to speech, it's a problem.
Think about it. All content it speech. So when you apply copyright to that, you're saying "I have the right to speak on this subject, but you don't." You silence people from expressing themselves in certain ways. That's a huge problem and it's the core function of copyright. I don't want to live in a society where some people can say things that I can't. On the other hand, if nobody utilizes that right, it's just as good, but the potential for censorship is still present.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can only assume that the business model you are proposing is one where someone creates something, for the joy of creating it, because they want it to exist or what ever reason they felt they should create this work; then returns to their day job hoping that a patron of some sort will see it and pay them to create an original work. While this might be a good way to get a job but it is hardly a business model.
With no sort of protection what is to prevent me from taking a song written by someone and using it in a car commercial, I don't have to pay the creator for it because as you state "no one can take work that isn't done" and thus I CAN take work that is done and use it for my own ends. Now I could pay him to write something original or I could eliminate that overhead costmby just using what has been created, and hypothetically is continuing to be created. Lets take this hypothetical in a slightly different direction: let's say I use that song in a commercial advertisement for something heinous, and since I didn't have to pay for it I can afford to air it more frequently, and in different markets so much so that whenever someone hears the song they think of the heinous product that was advertised so much so to cause the assumption that the songs creator must be in favor of the product, and from there any chance the songs creator had at getting paid for work is utterly poisoned. With no sort of protection he can't tell me what I can or can't do with his song. Sure he has the freedom to state that he had nothing to do with the advertisement, but if my marketing and distribution team is better then his then his statements will fall on deaf ears.
I'm not saying that there aren't gaping flaws in current copyright laws but the argument for its complete elimination is arguing against creator's right's and wrapping it all in "liberty" and "freedom of speech" is an oversimplification of the real world. I also think that services such as kick starter or other croudsourcing are fantastic, however, the truly successful ones are little more then preorders. hailing them as " the democratization of creation" is exceptionally over dramatic; and to base a business model on just this platform is naive.
Many are calling for patrons to pay artists to create, which aside from giving excessive power to a patron class, ignores the simple fact that most patrons or clients or employers for that matter want a certain return on investment, and this is one of the places were intellectual property laws do have value. If I were to pay for something to be created, then I want to reap the benefits of its creation, not to pay for its creation only to have someone else utilize it. There is even a chance that I am counting on the benefits to pay for its creation (but then again, while you can't be made to work for no pay you certainly can be tricked into it).
If business models are developed solely based on services the results of which go straight into the public domain then at a certain level what is being created is only being done only for the betterment of society and few business models can exist with that kind of altruism assumed. It would be wonderful if all art, design, music film or any media were created with the purpose of enriching society, but that isn't the world we live in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
+1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: +1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright will still find its space but in a very different, narrow and sane way. But not as it is today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Absolutely. And beyond that, I think there's an even more important discussion to be had: how could IP law be reformed to provide a commercial advantage to creators without relying on a strict system of permission & control? I believe it's possible.
One big component could be a shift to a more trademark-like view of copyright -- e.g. the focus is on ensuring that creators & rightsholders have the ability to present themselves as the "official" source and stop others from pretending the same. That combined with a cultural shift that places emphasis on supporting artists (that's not even really a 'shift' -- just the refinement and focusing of an attitude most people already have) would serve a lot of the commercial purposes of copyright while putting control mostly in the hands of creators rather than companies.
Another thing worth considering could be the realm of unfair competition laws. Now, that's a pretty dangerous area, and should be handled with extreme care in a free market economy -- but it could still potentially be a lot better than the near-absolute control of copyright. It would be good to find a way to prevent the sort of ongoing, wholesale copying that could block someone from a market -- e.g. in a hypothetical copyright-free world, how do we stop a publisher with resources from snapping up every indie ebook they see, changing the author's name, and selling them? On the one hand, I think a lot of that could be dealt with via market and cultural forces -- but is there a way to give the creator some sort of legal/economic "first mover" advantage without going as far as saying "you control all usage of your work"?
I don't have answers to all these questions of course -- but it's an area rich for progressive and valuable discussion, and unfortunately it's one we don't get too often enough because the other side of the copyright debate, which is 20+ years behind reality at this point, is holding us back...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As for the 'unfair competition' part I think that mixing it with the Teademark-ish style could help solve a lot of problems. Actually this is what I call commercial exploitation. Although I do think that making money on some creation without reserving a share to the creator seems bad too even if you correctly attribute the authorship to the right person. One way would be to greatly restrict how much control the author can have over derivative works (another problematic but workable part) and non-commercial uses (ie: file-sharing, beneficent, news/research and others (which may fall under the derivative work issue). But then it should be much more reasonable to treat copyright as the exception and not the rule?
I wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why do movie theaters need copyright to survive? Are you assuming that if it were legal to download movies for free on release day (and not just possible as it is now) that people would stop going to theaters?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I see, well copyright is only one such mechanism, and not necessarily the best, though it's obviously the one we're stuck with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Unfortunately, due to "Hollywood bookkeeping", little goes to the actual creators, almost all goes just to the studios.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The inherent flaw with this is that business that requires legislation to exist probably shouldn't exist. If there is a demand for a business it will exist. If there isn't a demand, then what do we actually lose by letting it die? We've already established the consumers don't want it!
Cinemas would be fine without IP. In fact I'd say they'd be better off. Why? Because they could charge less than $5 a movie since all they'd have to do is buy the movie once and not have to pay the original creator for each viewing. Now you're giving people a real *choice*...do I pay a couple of bucks to watch the movie on a huge screen with the latest sound, or watch a movie out of my house with my girlfriend so my parents aren't around to interrupt, or do I watch it at home? This is a harder decision when it's $10+ a movie. Or better yet; make a "subscription" theater where you pay $30 a month for a pass to the theater. Why not? If someone watches the film 50 times it doesn't cost you any more, and people are more likely to go if they are paying whether they go or not!
I could go on but the point is that the limitations of what will and won't exist if IP laws died are entirely based on the way they currently work. We've built our own limitations into reality and then have been spending millions of dollars trying to force everyone to conform to that reality.
And then we scratch our heads and wonder why the economy is bad. Doh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The inherent flaw with this is that business that requires legislation to exist probably shouldn't exist. If there is a demand for a business it will exist. If there isn't a demand, then what do we actually lose by letting it die? We've already established the consumers don't want it!
Here you missed my actual point. I'm not talking about the cinemas but rather the creators. Culture is not a business. And it'll be produced regardless of copyright. However suppose you make a movie and release it. Then Company A gets a copy (which is fairly easy nowadays) and starts selling it without ever contacting you. Then Cinema B buys from company A and starts making money on your stuff without ever contacting you. I"m not saying you are entitled to money every single time they sell the movie or tickets. However there should be a way to ensure some money went to the creator. A one time fee could be a good solution. If cinemas could make some donation based model where people could add extra chips if they like the movie that would go exclusively to the movie crew or something.
You see where I want to get to? I don't have the answers on how to avoid exploitation of creators without making copyright a stupidity. Baldur suggested an interesting term above: provenance. I think this is the main focus here. If the cinemas need to fully disclose provenance and provide at least some advert to the creators pages (for instance) where people could donate..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If the creator gets paid by the people to make something, then releases it to the internet for free, they still get paid. If it's popular then their next product will get more funding. If Kickstarter is any indication, it will be way overfunded.
Computer games are a great example...how many people are willing to preorder games? They don't know if it's going to be good. They can pirate it probably less than a week after it's released. Yet preorder sales for popular publishers and games are always high.
By the entertainment industry logic, it's only the threat of copyright that causes people to pay...but this couldn't be further from the truth. People are scared of copyright litigation like they're scared of car crashes. Sure, it could happen. But fear of car crashes doesn't stop a whole lot of people from driving. The reason people pay for content is because they want more content. You pay for stuff you want. The main reason for "piracy" is that the law prevents people from paying for what they want, mainly, content they can use as they please. So they get it anyway. This is not rocket science or advanced economics.
People don't need copyright to create. People don't need threat of copyright to pay others to create. We've never needed it. The only people who need it are those who have centered their business around abusing it.
Why do we need these people again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's like a child who recognises that stabilisers can't be necessary for cycling, indeed, would interfere with it, still cannot believe they will remain upright if stabilisers are removed from their own bicycle.
Perhaps it's more like a cigarette addict, who, on an intellectual level accepts the damage and impairment smoking causes, nevertheless on an emotional level insists that they cannot function properly without them (despite so many people clearly doing so).
So, when people seem to be saying "OK guys, this crutch obviously makes no sense, but there has to be some way to improve it" you wonder whether they're asking for assistance in giving it up, or assistance in finding an excuse to continue with it.
Understanding why copyright is unethical, unviable, unenforceable, unnecessary, unjust, uneconomic, etc. is a cinch compared to understanding why people find any extent of such understanding still doesn't warrant copyright's abolition - as if it would be some kind of apostasy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think most people recognize that abolishing copyright in the US is politically impossible in the short and medium term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And what is to stop copyright advocators banning these things? They think it IS justified when it comes to electricity, so why not paper and ink?
Copyright only pretends to solve the free-rider problem, but in reality it does not. People can still "steal" from artists and follow every copyright law in the book by borrowing second-hand DVDs, or buying them from ebay only to resell them for the same price after watching.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And copyright enforcement becomes "thought control".
I like where this is going; thanks :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Key words minion didn't mention: "someone else's".
So if ReDigi wants to profit from content without the difficulty of creating and paying for its production then they're required to jump through whatever hoops those who did create and pay for it want to put on them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Key words minion didn't mention: "someone else's".
Although, I suspect it isn't pretending.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Key words minion didn't mention: "someone else's".
People could quote you in books or on radio or tv, without seeking your permission or paying you anything for all the time, effort and froth you put into it, most likely books or programmes on psychology and psychiatry.
It stopped being solely yours the second you made it public, you never had a 'right' to make money from it, you perhaps could make money out of it if you put at an ootb book of nonsense but it's not a right and is not guaranteed and it is not anyone else's responsibility to ensure that anyone who reads what you wrote and laughs pays for the pleasure nor does anyone who reads what you write and laughs have any obligation of any sort to give you money for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Key words minion didn't mention: "someone else's".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Key words minion didn't mention: "someone else's".
or is there a difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Key words minion didn't mention: "someone else's".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Key words minion didn't mention: "someone else's".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Key words minion didn't mention: "someone else's".
So when I copy files onto my media, whether optical disk, hard disk or SSD...according to you I now own the content? Thanks a lot!
Talk about undermining your own arguments. You've always argued the exact opposite and now a complete 180?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Key words minion didn't mention: "someone else's".
Whoever put analog and/or digital data onto media OWNS the content, NOT the media.
Who really ‘owns’ anything? You can say ‘I own my comment’, but what does that mean — that you own the idea behind it, or the exact expression of that idea and everything that builds upon your comment (including my comment)?
How can you really own something as intangible as ‘content’, anyway? You can buy a book, and you can buy a DVD, but you can’t buy ‘content’ because ‘content’ doesn’t technically exist in the same sort of tangible, hold-it-in-your-hand way that sheets of paper or plastic discs do. At best, you own the media which expresses content, not the content itself, because you can’t actually ‘own’ content.
…well, enough of that philosophical bullshit.
you can PAY whatever is asked for the licensing to access it, or go without
And what of the people who pay for it? Why can’t they buy a DVD, then rip the DVD to transfer the movie to another media player?
Because The DMCA makes it an illegal act to crack DRM (or distribute the tools to do so), and 99.999999999% of all DVDs and Blu-rays have some form of DRM attached to them.
Yes, people do it anyway, but that doesn’t make the actual law on the books calling everyone who does it a criminal any less nonsensical in the face of technology.
(Never mind the fact that the movie companies really want you to pay for movies twice over if you want to legally purchase a DVD, then legally download a digital version of the film.)
I made it from scratch, it's MINE. Everyone else keep their paws off.
…well, shit, I just set myself up for a lawsuit by quoting your comment in mine. Do you want to hire Charles Carreon or Prenda? I’ll take whichever one you don’t want, because either way, things’ll end up entertaining.
The legal way may seem harsh to you "gimme, gimme" kids who think you should be paid just for enjoying content, but the deal works for adults.
Most of us adults here (I’m over thirty by the by) agree that creators should receive recompense for their work, and that people trying to unfairly screw over creators (including ReDigi and its ridiculous attempts to create a ‘used computer file’ market) deserve nothing less than criticism and shame.
We just don’t think the law has to protect creators by making it impossible for consumers to make full use of the technology available to the world to enjoy their legally-purchased content however they wish.
We also don’t think that the major media conglomerates have the best interests of the people — creators and consumers alike — when they shape copyright law. What would you say to an author if he wants to offer an audiobook version of their eBook, but the law prevents him from offering it on any of the major eBook platforms? What would ask a filmmaker to do if she wants people to distribute her film around the world in any way possible, but the only way to pull off such distribution would make the people who do so criminals? (And what if that group of people included the filmmaker herself?)
When you jump all over Mike and the Techcanics for saying ‘copyright is evil and should be abolished’, you take a hardline extremist stance without considering all the shades of gray in the arguments both for and against copyright. For you, copyright means protecting copyright holders at the expense of everyone else’s rights, and you believe Mike and his posse want to abolish copyright completely and make culture a free-for-all (no joke intended) where anyone can lay claim to any work and no one can make money.
Have you ever, even once, considered that copyright doesn’t always protect creators and can turn even you into a criminal under the right circumstances?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Key words minion didn't mention: "someone else's".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Key words minion didn't mention: "someone else's".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We could at least save the taxpayers, globally, many hundreds of millions of actual money, although it would be important to bear in mind that money itself is an imaginary analogous construct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've an easier way for them:
"Imagine me wanting to buy anything from you under terms like this, because that's as close as you're going to get to a sale. I prefer to do without (boycott) instead.
Some of my favourite music is forty-one years old, can be found on YouTube, and is still subject to regular DMCA takedowns, regardless. I've legally owned the LP and cassette tape versions (and still use the latter), and the takedowns are just annoying me and hurting you. Have a nice life."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have said it many times but it is still true. The problem comes from seeing movies or songs as a commodity to be bought and sold rather than culture to be enjoyed and shared. Somewhere down the line perception of content has become warped and the original purpose of culture has been forgotten. I am not saying content should be 'free as in free beer' but it should be 'free as in freedom'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're not even pretending.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright should not exist.
I have to disagree. Copyright exists to create scarcities and as Ninja said, "they can sell real scarcities that don't need copyright to be protected: themselves." Copyright does one thing and one thing only, it forces the market to adapt to a business model rather than the business model adapting to the market. For that reason, copyright should not exist, because it's forcing reality to bend to the will of content owners. Copyright forces us to accept the idea that speech can be property and without this concept of property, copyright would be meaningless. There is nothing copyright can provide that can't be solved with smart business models and that's another reason copyright shouldn't exist. To say there might be a place for copyright is really nothing less than an apologist stance and in light of everything else you said, it smells like an attempt to calm the copyright supporters after reading everything prior to that. You can't really say all that and not come to the conclusion that copyright shouldn't exist given that there are perfectly successful alternatives to copyright.
Copyright should not exist. Sell yourself, not your work. Nobody can take from you what you don't create. Nobody can make you work for free, but if you rely on copyright to protect you, you're allowing that to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright should not exist.
I think this is just a question of terminology. When I say there is still a potential place for "copyright" in the world, I mean copyright (or some system by another name) wherein we do not "accept the idea" that speech is property, but are choosing to offer certain highly-limited competitive advantages to creators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright should not exist.
I agree, but it's an important question of terminology. When I start to see the term "intellectual property" in common use, my first thought was that whoever started using the term was kindof brilliant in an evil way. By getting everyone to refer to it as "property," the day would inevitably come when people begin to think of it as just a different form of property, and so property laws should apply -- even though the centuries of debate on this very issue makes it clear that this is not a given. Our original copyright law was, in fact, trying to thread this needle. To give some property-like rights without incurring the nastiness and deceit involved in actually considering it to be property.
And here we are today. Language is important.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright should not exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright should not exist.
The former meaning is rapidly going the way of the dodo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism_(negationism)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright should not exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright should not exist.
Functionally there may not be a difference at the core, but it has a big impact. The fact that we grew to believe in speech as property is what allowed copyright to spiral so insanely out of control. All I'm really saying is that I'm not prepared to rule out the idea that granting exclusive rights to creators might be useful if done very carefully and correctly.
As a comparison: the war on drugs in America is an utter disaster that is causing innumerable social problems. As things stand, everyone would probably be better off if all drug laws were abolished. However, I cannot say unequivocally that all societies should abandon all substance control laws of any kind -- perhaps that's true, but I don't think we can make a clear determination on that yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright should not exist.
Your analogy is flawed. The war on drugs is nothing like war on infringement. Drugs do clear measurable harm and need at least some control to prevent it from doing more. Infringement, on the other hand, does not cause anyone harm and there are ways around the issue. In the absence of copyright, companies will just change their business model to leverage something scarce, rather than forcing artificial scarcity. The idea that copyright will proliferate the creation of new content is also flawed. Content begets more content. It's greater access to content that is going to proliferate more new content. You can't be creative in a vacuum; a culturally diverse mind is a highly creative mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright should not exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I vote this whole post as insightful
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I vote this whole post as insightful
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patent Lobotomy
Working backward from that model, we can see that very few patents should be valid. Recipes cannot be patented, and a recipe is just a collection of ingredients which are processed together in a specific way. There are also chemical and biological changes that occur during the processing, so this should in no way validate a patent. Thus, all chemical, pharmacutical and process-related patents should be invalidated, with software patents following the process-related patents.
The most obvious takeaway from this is that the patent system is inconsistent and capricious, and is in no way deserving of the respect it has been given.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patent Lobotomy
A patent is a different creature, because the owner believes he owns a concept, not it's expression, and I know from experience that ideas are seldom original, often occur simultaneously, are often poorly documented and definitely do inhibit others' creativity and ability to do the same with similar ideas.
So copyrights don't seem to harm society or culture, while allowing the creator the ability to make some money, with no downside to quantity. Patents, when used a lot, inhibit new creations by freezing development until patents run out. I think progress is limited by the excessive numbers of patents, not enhanced. Perhaps they should be limited to the best 100 ideas each year or some such. But giving exclusive monopolies for many years on ideas of marginal value is not the way to go, I think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright
The "Statute of Anne", passed in 1710, attempted to shift that toward the creators, but pretty much failed, with the guilds and printing houses still being in control.
Copyright, today, is STILL about protecting the publishers and very little about the creators. That was fine as long as a "copy" was a physical thing one could see, touch, hold, and smell, and was limited by it's very nature as a manufactured thing - only so many could be made.
Digital files, on the other hand, are not so limited. They can be (and many times are) reproduced endlessly. Indeed, publishers get the original manuscripts in that form, and reproduce them, edit them, and finally generate printing masters from them to make the physical objects they sell. Meantime hundreds of copies, in various states, exist in the publisher's computer systems. This whole thing is a farce to preserve the profits of the publishers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Intellectual Property"
This privilege is to be granted to the ORIGINAL creator ONLY, not some third-party. The whole concept that a patent or copyright is property that can be bought and sold like a used lawnmower is insane, and the basis of 99% of our problems with them.
Yes, patents and copyrights should be able to be assigned or licensed, but the original creator retains control. If disputes arise between the creator and his assignees or licensees, or a third party, that is a matter of contract or Tort law. In any event, the patent or copyright is not property, and should only be granted for a short period of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hitting the nail on the head.
That's an analogy for this article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OP is an idiot
"Used" MP3s don't refer at all to the data - they refer to *the right to use the data*, the license to the recording. What is being transferred is the right to own and listen to it. It's the same basis on which libraries lend audio CDs, which are easily rippable: the point is not the physical access to the data, but whether or not the individual has the right to use it.
There's a ton of value in the "used" MP3 market. Imagine that you have an entire licensed collection of music from an artist - say, The Beatles' entire discography - and you either need some cash or you don't like them any more. Rather than someone buying the MP3s from iTunes (which actually isn't "buying" the music - most of the cost is in buying *a license* to the music), you could "sell your used MP3s" by transferring your ownership (and, incidentally, the data) to someone else.
As for enforcement: While it's impossible (and terrible policy) to enforce MP3 licenses against individual consumers, lots of other places *need* licenses for music, and the ability to demonstrate valid ownership and rights - like DJs and dance halls. The license itself has significant value, apart from the data.
In summary, a "used" MP3 market would create an actual free market for music licenses, rather than the controlled, price-inflated, supply-constrained oligopoly that we have now - which is the main reason that the MPAA opposes it. It's also why we should all encourage its development.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OP is an idiot
MP3's are a collection of 1's and 0's on a hard drive. There is literally no difference between the Track 1.mp3 on my hard drive and the Track 1.mp3 on your hard drive. If you "borrow" mp3s from a library, the library files still remain on their computers.
Bringing in land is again a false analogy. You're trying to equate the usage of something physical with something that is not physical. Only a finite number of people are physically able to make use of land or (Insert Object Here) and so, over time, society determined that property rights had to be created and enforced. However, the same cannot be said of mp3s or any type of digital data. When I listen to Track 1.mp3 using my own equipment, there is literally no effect on you. If I was using your land, I'd be taking up space, possibly damaging it. Not so with digital data.
Also, think about the "licence" part. You're literally paying for permission to use your own equipment. The MP3 is, at its most basic, a set of instructions to the machine on which sounds to make, at what beat etc. You are already able to do this with or without the licence. The artist is not able to perceive in any way if someone plays his mp3. Yet, for some reason, a licence is necessary.
I ask you to please elaborate on the potential market of used mp3's. I simply cannot disagree with you more. The main problem is that the sale of used mp3s would massively depend on DRM to ensure that the seller deletes his tracks, which goes against my belief that I and I alone should control every operation of my computer. What if you have the Beatles discography spread out on many devices: a tablet, your phone, an MP3 player? As far as a potential DRM scheme would see, it can only verify that the tracks on your main desktop/laptop are deleted. I have no problem with people paying to access servers in order to get at files: I've done it myself with cyberlockers, but to then mandate that files must be deleted, so as to pretend that an object has been physically moved from one point to another?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OP is an idiot
The physical token is simpler but not really much more finite.
Physical copies can cost pennies depending on how much effort a publisher wants to put into pressing a particular CD or DVD.
Although the problem of ownership still exists even in the absence of any sort of exchange mechanism. You still have the problem of verifying your ownership of licenses to works that aren't associated with some physical token.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OP is an idiot
Wow. You are exactly backwards. The CD is a physical object. You can claim ownership of it. You can pick it up. Lend it out. Break it. Someone tries to take it from you, you can defend it. You OWN it.
An MP3 file is a token. It represents something. You can make thousands of identical files in seconds. These "copies" will be identical and consume virtually no matter or resources. You cannot lend it. You cannot own it. You cannot pick it up or defend it. The data it represents can be wiped from existence, utterly, with nothing left over to show for it.
This is the difference between something real and something imaginary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OP is an idiot
Rikuo says it all, but this one part irks me to no end. Copyright doesn't protect the right to use something, but the right to copy something.
In a traditional sense, with books, music, etc., copyright wasn't used to prevent someone from accessing a work, but to prevent them from copying that work. Sure, with music, copyright prevented someone from taking the music and reproducing it with an instrument, but it didn't prevent them from reading the music, or listening to the music.
It is only recently that copyright maximalists have increased the copyright law to include usage of a work, but that is their ultimate goal, isn't it, to become a tax agent, collecting money for existing without providing any sort of benefit to society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OP is an idiot
MMO's have been keeping this stuff straight for at least a decade or so. You can't copy your sword. You can't steal someone else's sword. You can't sell illegal versions of your sword. But it's your sword. You can use it, break it, sell it, and lend it all you want.
It's still imaginary, but it's also still property. And yes, there are novels in Skyrim you can exchange with others. If there isn't music or videos you can sell or exchange or give out in a legal fashion on online games, the companies are working on it.
I'm on linkedin a lot and I see stupidity about copyright EVERYWHERE (only one thread about selling e-books isn't moderated by someone who doesn't think like Scott Turrow). Isn't it ironic that communities where you bash something's skull in and take it's insides are better about copyright than where copyright should be straightened out in the first place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OP is an idiot
In the case of music, books, movies, etc., most people want to share them with friends because that makes the experience more enjoyable. They want to expose people they know to things they love. With those things, the value to the consumer is decreased by artificial scarcity.
It is the same reason that most news struggles behind a paywall, but financial news can do quite well. In most cases, people want to discuss the news with their friends and colleagues, and send links around (so artificial scarcity decreases value). With financial news, the people who want it generally don't want to share it, and find it even more beneficial if fewer people have access to it (so artificial scarcity increases value)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: OP is an idiot
Also, some MMO's allow you to steal someone else's sword. It's not any different than Bilbo stealing Gollum's ring: neither exists (could Tolkien have copied the ring? Yes). It's all make-believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OP is an idiot
In a game, that means including all the fun bits, which includes ownership of fantasy items, while excluding the not-fun bits (the game doesn't stab you when your character gets stabbed)
In a flight training simulator, it means including as many realistic details as possible while excluding actual danger.
In a "file system" conceptualizing digital information in a way similar to physical files, it means including all the useful bits (such as grouping items together in named folders) while excluding all the limiting bits (such as there being a harsh physical limit to how many folders you can nest in one another, or it not being easy to instantly duplicate a physical file)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OP is an idiot
So very true!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An old song comes to mind
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am a Proud Dinosaur !
I am a dinosaur as far as the Digital File Buying goes.Everything I own is physical and I do own my possessions.My Library of Rarities alone is Appraised at $16500 USD.I also own a lot of music and various DVD's.
I bought a ton of Used things off 2ND Hand Stores and Online Sources.
I can read my books anywhere.I can put my film collection and music on any device.I own my things.I can Resell them or throw them in the trash or keep them.
NOTE:
I became a punk rocker in 1976 because of my genuine hate of the Big Content Industries.
I created my old 70's band to be Anti-Music Music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reality check:
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_02702.htm
Kablooey.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why?
What's so expensive in those movies? Is it the sets? The costumes? The actors? The cameras?
With computer technology many of these costs can be drastically reduced. Here's the thing; why are sets expensive? Partially because you need to buy rights to the stuff you use on the set. The costumes? Same thing; the material and manufacturing are very cheap. Actors? A large portion of their cost comes from contractual obligations. And camera technology is cheap. Even computer graphics, widely considered to be a huge cost on "big budget" films, are primarily expensive because you need to buy software that's slightly better than freeware for literally thousands of dollars per artist, then pay more for each prefab object you use in that software, then licensing costs for everything you used.
If you cut out the copyright costs of making a movie you'd find that they take a fraction of the current budget to make. Distribution costs are practically nothing with digital distribution if you remove the licensing costs.
It's a self-perpetuating cycle that's mostly smoke and mirrors. Intellectual property must be expensive to sell since it's expensive to make and it's expensive to make because of intellectual property costs. And round and round it goes. The scam is in all the people getting paid without actually adding any value to the final product. What function do the lawyers have in a film other than to protect the creator from copyright? What function do the movie studios have other than to distribute the movies based on restrictions created from copyright?
How can you be surprised they are making up imaginary reasons for their purpose when their purpose itself is imaginary?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A used MP3 is a laughable statement. Its just another new format for culture to develop by sharing it by resale or gift. Due to the nature of copying it can be re-gifted in unlimited ways. Its new every time.
Copyright was written/developed hundreds of years ago to use the newer printing and distributing methods of the day. Most of the commercial opportunities were based on the fact that nobody could afford a printing press. This is no longer true.
Everyone that owns a computer with Internet and a printer has the same capacity of a small scale printer of the 1900s. Copying a file such as an MP3 would have been unimaginable magic.
For culture to develop in the same way we immediately forgot the ice cooled food storage box for the refrigerator we need to allow the same for the new ways we can communicate through innovative formats like MP3's. (or mkv, avi, Ogg, Vorbis, or other)
The legally preposterous claim of theft when a file is copied can not be sustained if we need our culture of technological advancement to take off and succeed in a world of competitiveness.
The Record companies, RIAA and other sound based organizations have basically argued that black is white and up is down in an incredibly asinine attempt to continue selling vinyl ice to everyone who has already purchased a refrigerator (computer). Trying to enforce this anti cultural attitude by lobbying (however successfully) for laws must eventually backfire.
What we need is to tailor copywrong law around our individual technological abilities so that at the very least our kids don't end up in jail or fined lifetime amounts.
Its our turn to reform black copywrong into a new culturally beneficial system based on copyright that forces authors to produce more works by having workable/reasonable term limits less than the lifetime of the listeners. Who cares about the author when talking about culture, innovation and developing new works based on old (crap) is concerned.
Reactionary,
Somewhat in agreement with Akari Mizunashi that the phrase Intellectual Property is wrong on so many levels. The word property is to possessive and suggests ownership over ideas and knowledge which is way so bad. If accepted for normal use it lends to much in favor of entitlement at the cost of culture and society.
Its probably best to challenge even the usage of it immediately when some copyright maximalist tries to use it in some silly argument in favor of new law. (or whatever is being attempted there seems so much weirdness and incongruence in Hollywood law these days.
In this article the term was used only in the title “The Copyright Lobotomy: How Intellectual Property Makes Us Pretend To Be Stupid” accompanied with two derogatory words which seems the proper treatment of the term 'intellectual property'.
In the text it was followed up with two different uses of property both based on the physical sense building an argument that articulated the concept of the phrase 'intellectual property' being used as an analogy itself and how limited and useless it is as an analogy. A good read.
Sounds like both the challenge (nice to see it put to task just to have the lousy phrase mentioned) and the article are OK. No complaints.
Now if we could only have such a quick challenge during the promotion of some stupid misguided legislation/law/bill/act that would be real progress.
Leigh Brandon. “I would choose abolition over the absolute disaster that is copyright today.”
I so totally agree with this statement. Copymight is so totally corrupted by Hollywood ways of thinking. It may be that we can transform todays copywrong into copyright again but thats a real challenge and would require a lot of rational minds working together. Very hard to do that.
Things are so bad that copyright monopoly base industries have had a taste of making monopolistic law. That is a very dictatorially (power hype) addictive thing likely to end in a bad way for both consumer and complicit firms. Culture will suffer.
Its pointless to ague about the right to own and listen to an MP3. One might argue whether the same MP3 is broadcast and heard from a radio is a public performance which is equally ridiculous. (But law says otherwise if certain conditions are met) What was once considered Fair Use Rights is now illegal.
Things are so bad today that possibly the only way to get the attention of copyright holders it to toss them into the same gutter they are now throwing (us?) their very own fans/customers/users/supporters/etc into. All together now... Heave ho!
The pay-wall comment for financial news was great insight on the nature of sharing culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Minor correction?
Amazingly well written, and a fantastic piece I'll be using in future arguments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Minor correction?
That's true -- in which case it's a different kind of analogy. It crossed my mind but I felt like the point as clear without needing to get overly technical :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Purpose of Copyright, etc.
That is incorrect as a historical matter. The original purpose of the copyright under English law was to grant to a particular printer a monopoly on the copying and distribution of a given work. The royal favor was commonly granted to publish a foreign author's work without recompense to the author.
On the right being a legal fiction and turtling all the way down, yes. Even Government and Law are pure mental constructs, having existence only in the human mind. I never kissed one, never changed one's diaper, never gave on a hug. They do not exist.
Too often, I get a chortle when I see a representative of a corporation like Microsoft advocating free market principles for a copyrighted or patented work. That's because corporations, like copyrights and patents, are market artificialities created by government. None of them have any physical existence, not government, not law, not corporations, not patents, and not copyrights. All are legal fictions whose raison d'être is to interfere with freedom and free market principles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
infinite perfection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: infinite perfection
That's incorrect. MP3 is a lossy compression algorithm, so the MP3 will not be a perfect copy of the original. However, you can copy that MP3 as many times as you want without losing anything further. Each subsequent copy will be identical to the first MP3.
Many serious music fans use lossless files like flac to copy and store music data, which by its very name, verifies that there is a degradation of data and quality as MP3s are copied.
Lossless means exactly what it says - no loss. The copy contains all the information in the original. Your sentence starts out using flac as an example and then suddenly switches to MP3 so I'm not entirely sure what you're saying.
The notion of infinitely perfect digital versions no matter how many times they're reproduced is a mythical idea itself not supported by reality.
No, it's quite real. Do you think if you copied a Word file, and then copied the copy, and so on, it would eventually "degrade" until it couldn't be opened any more? No, each copy is an exact and perfect copy of the original. The same is true of any type of file (unless the file gets corrupted, in which case it won't be slightly subtly different, it will be completely borked).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: infinite perfection
You seem confused about the difference between "lossless vs. lossy compression" (whether or not the compression causes a loss of the fidelity of the original) and degradation of quality through subsequently copied generations.
The former is merely a consideration over which format to use for storage. MP3s are smaller and supported by more devices, but the size is partially achieved by reducing the frequency range of the sound. Most people either don't notice or don't care about this reduction. Those who do notice or care have the option of storing in FLAC, which is uncompressed, and thus far larger in size.
But, this is only a consideration when you make the first copy. Every single copy following that is an identical copy of that file. This is one of the major bonuses that digital content has over analogue copies - tapes will degrade massively through each generation. Digital files don't. No matter how many generations down the line you listen, the file will always be identical (barring random corruption from software, network or disk errors).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: infinite perfection
FLAC is compressed, just in a lossless fashion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: infinite perfection
Anyway, to Dan - this doesn't change the overall point. Whether the file is compressed in a lossy codec or a lossless codec, the digital file that results does not degrade with further copies, no matter which codec was initially chosen. (Unless DRM/watermarking needs bypassing along the way, but that's a separate issue).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We are expected, by the copyright industry and its enablers like Congress, Spotify, Google, etc.; to pretend that the data flowing through devices we own is not ours to do with as we please; to pretend that we can't decrypt, unwrap, demux, save to disk, or otherwise recontextualize the content. We are expected to pretend we are so stupid, we can only handle being told where to enter our credit card numbers and personal info, and where to click to access the music or movie or e-book. We are told to pretend that any technology the content industry doesn't want us to have, doesn't, shouldn't, and mustn't exist, and that sharing such technology amongst ourselves, just like sharing the content amongst ourselves, is a crime and is wrong. Oh, and we must pretend that only the government and industry-approved devices can break digital locks.
It's madness, utter madness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What's mad is recognising how stupid copyright is and still insisting that copyright should continue to exist, that it can somehow be 'repaired' to enable artists to control what people do with their work without being exploited as a monopoly and means of censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At the end of the day
When thought of in those terms, copyright gets ludicrous fast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adendum: moving files
[ link to this | view in chronology ]