...what kind of copyright laws would most effectively promote progress while causing the least possible harm?
I'm very interested to know more about this subject.
That's fine, but it is no reason to blindly enact, strengthen, or even continue with copyright law in the hopes that it will somehow let him quit his day job, when the copyright laws we already have don't do so
That's an excellent point, but it's not an argument for why to abolish copyright, and get rid of the way many people put food on their tables, without some kind of alternative plan.
I've read about the fan-funded model a fair bit recently. I have to say that although I think it's an interesting idea and is working for some people, I don't agree at all that it is a good solution to replace traditional copyright.
It's a wonderful thing that people can self-publish these days, start small labels, and go the DIY route; it's great that a small unknown artist can produce a piece of work that does really well and they benefit from that. In the model you're describing, they won't. It will benefit the known acts who already have a following and make the job of the small guys all the harder.
From the consumer side, you're suggesting telling people that copying music/software/literature is fine, legal, a right, and then you're expecting them to fund creative projects. Why will they do that?
The world is learning how to adapt to the changes the internet has brought, and saying that copyright has already effectively ended isn't right. If you decide you're not going to pay for copyright works then you're not playing by the rules, and you shouldn't think of yourself as a "random victim" if you get caught out.
Thanks for the links. They look interesting and I shall endeavour to read them. I understand the point your making now but I guess I'm not quite getting what it means in practical terms.
For example, if copyright is abolished, then I spend a year writing a book and sell it to someone, they would then have the right to copy it and give it away for free.(?) Wouldn't that make my year off a rather expensive excercise?
I understand that there are problems with copyright (though I don't think it's nearly as broken as other areas of IP law), and I hear of countless examples of its failings (many on this blog actually) but I haven't heard many alternative suggestions for how to do things.
My own love for music (and literature and probably even some software!) makes me believe they are worth "promoting the progress" of.
Purely anecdotal, but I know of a wonderful music producer who also does a second job to pay the bills. I would much prefer it if this guy spent every day making music. The world would be a richer place if he did.
Also, I'm interested to hear thoughts on how a software company, for example, could afford to develop new software, if they do not keep an exclusive right to sell that software.
Thanks for your reply. I'm not sure I fully understand your point though.
If authors should keep an exclusive right to their intellectual works, how is that any different to copyright? And if we abolish that right, how do we promote progress?
I don't think it's black and white to say that you should be able to link to whatever you want. The "we don't host it, we just link to it" argument isn't sound. For example, if someone has a blog linking to copyright content hosted on one-click hosting sites (like rapidshare or megaupload), is that ok because they aren't actually hosting it? Is that actually the hosting site in the wrong?
I think if Google have sufficient reason to believe they are linking to illegal material, they should be obliged to remove their links.
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: alternatives...
I'm very interested to know more about this subject.
That's fine, but it is no reason to blindly enact, strengthen, or even continue with copyright law in the hopes that it will somehow let him quit his day job, when the copyright laws we already have don't do so
That's an excellent point, but it's not an argument for why to abolish copyright, and get rid of the way many people put food on their tables, without some kind of alternative plan.
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's a wonderful thing that people can self-publish these days, start small labels, and go the DIY route; it's great that a small unknown artist can produce a piece of work that does really well and they benefit from that. In the model you're describing, they won't. It will benefit the known acts who already have a following and make the job of the small guys all the harder.
From the consumer side, you're suggesting telling people that copying music/software/literature is fine, legal, a right, and then you're expecting them to fund creative projects. Why will they do that?
The world is learning how to adapt to the changes the internet has brought, and saying that copyright has already effectively ended isn't right. If you decide you're not going to pay for copyright works then you're not playing by the rules, and you shouldn't think of yourself as a "random victim" if you get caught out.
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re:
For example, if copyright is abolished, then I spend a year writing a book and sell it to someone, they would then have the right to copy it and give it away for free.(?) Wouldn't that make my year off a rather expensive excercise?
I understand that there are problems with copyright (though I don't think it's nearly as broken as other areas of IP law), and I hear of countless examples of its failings (many on this blog actually) but I haven't heard many alternative suggestions for how to do things.
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
Re: Re:
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
Re: Re: alternatives...
Purely anecdotal, but I know of a wonderful music producer who also does a second job to pay the bills. I would much prefer it if this guy spent every day making music. The world would be a richer place if he did.
Also, I'm interested to hear thoughts on how a software company, for example, could afford to develop new software, if they do not keep an exclusive right to sell that software.
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
If authors should keep an exclusive right to their intellectual works, how is that any different to copyright? And if we abolish that right, how do we promote progress?
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
alternatives...
ie. How can we "promote the progress" of music, software, literature etc if we remove the copyrights of the creators of those works?
On the post: If You're Arguing That Someone 'Deserves' Copyright, Your Argument Is Wrong
Re: Re: Re:
sorry dude but that's some old-school economics you're using. =]
On the post: Google Fighting Spanish Law Requiring It To Remove Links Based On Privacy Claims
i know it's a can of worms but...
I think if Google have sufficient reason to believe they are linking to illegal material, they should be obliged to remove their links.
Next >>