Big media was showing us water skiing squirrels on the local news long before there was a YouTube. Meanwhile, independent creators today are making way more awesome stuff than that. Sad to think you're missing out on it all.
(interesting sidenote: on another thread about this post elsewhere, I am being accused of the exact opposite -- wholesale opposing copyright without bothering to consider the details or practicalities. It seems you can't win.)
You keep citing examples where copyright is still necessary
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?
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.
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.
Look, Crosbie, if you're going to tell me that you know me better than I know myself, I'm not going to have a conversation with you.
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.
Greevar, I feel you are being ridiculously absolutist about this.
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.
I think that all is true in theory, but I think you are ignoring practicalities of the world we live in.
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.
Moving isn't always copying and then deleting, some OSes merely change the pointers or location flags.
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 :)
Sure, I agree with most of that. My point is just that "copyright" can mean a lot of things and I don't think it's time to rule it out entirely.
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.
The whole point of DMCA safe harbors was to carve out a clear liability exception for service providers. A key component of that is that there is no duty to proactively monitor.
But if not all recordings are covered, safe harbors accomplish nothing and serve no purpose. The service provider does become liable for pre-1972 infringing works, and it does become their duty to proactively look for and eliminate them -- which means looking through all works uploaded to the service.
Imagine, as a weird hypothetical to extend on your comparison, the Gun Control Act were amended (the same way the DMCA amended the Copyright Act) to state that pawn shops can buy and sell guns in sealed, unmarked containers without looking inside them (i'm not sure if that makes any sense legally but I'm stretching a bit to make the comparison). Now imagine a court said that's true, BUT it can't apply to pre-1899 guns since the GCA doesn't apply to those, so you still have to open those boxes. But there's no way to tell which boxes have pre-1899 guns and which ones don't. Thus the new provision is effectively useless.
Right. Basically, in all cases, we choose to take a simulation as far as we need for a given purpose.
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)
There is a bit of a key difference there. WIth property in an MMO, the player derives a great deal of the value from the fact that nobody else has it, even though it could technically be replicated infinitely -- the value to the consumer is increased by artificial scarcity
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)
Hmm, yeah, that's kinda fair -- collection society was perhaps a bit imprecise. However, they're not far off -- long after they shuttered as a label, they carried on as OZT Rights Management, and where in charge of collecting licensing fees for all sorts of stuff in their catalogue (but i suppose not quite a "society" in the sense of groups like ASCAP)
I guess I feel there's a difference between saying "this speech is your property" and saying "we choose to give you certain highly limited exclusive rights to this speech because we value what you create, and feel that is an effective way of helping you continue to create and prosper for doing so"
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.
On the post: Bob Goodlatte Calls For Copyright Reform, Leaves Specifics To The Imagination
Re:
On the post: Shopzilla Threatens To Sue Site For 3 Year Old Neutral Link To Shopzilla... Then Apologizes
Re:
That is an entirely different issue, to do with linking to infringing content.
On the post: The Copyright Lobotomy: How Intellectual Property Makes Us Pretend To Be Stupid
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Copyright Lobotomy: How Intellectual Property Makes Us Pretend To Be Stupid
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Copyright Lobotomy: How Intellectual Property Makes Us Pretend To Be Stupid
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?
On the post: The Copyright Lobotomy: How Intellectual Property Makes Us Pretend To Be Stupid
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.
On the post: Bureau Of Economic Analysis Shows Why Copyright Terms Should Be Greatly Diminished
Re: YES, as I've said, ROLL IT BACK to 28 years tops!
On the post: Grooveshark Loses Latest Round In Court, In A Ruling That Could Gut The DMCA's Safe Harbors
Re: The purpose behind the safe harbors
On the post: The Copyright Lobotomy: How Intellectual Property Makes Us Pretend To Be Stupid
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.
On the post: The Copyright Lobotomy: How Intellectual Property Makes Us Pretend To Be Stupid
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.
On the post: The Copyright Lobotomy: How Intellectual Property Makes Us Pretend To Be Stupid
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.
On the post: Grooveshark Loses Latest Round In Court, In A Ruling That Could Gut The DMCA's Safe Harbors
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Copyright Lobotomy: How Intellectual Property Makes Us Pretend To Be Stupid
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 :)
On the post: The Copyright Lobotomy: How Intellectual Property Makes Us Pretend To Be Stupid
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.
On the post: Grooveshark Loses Latest Round In Court, In A Ruling That Could Gut The DMCA's Safe Harbors
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Grooveshark Loses Latest Round In Court, In A Ruling That Could Gut The DMCA's Safe Harbors
Re:
The whole point of DMCA safe harbors was to carve out a clear liability exception for service providers. A key component of that is that there is no duty to proactively monitor.
But if not all recordings are covered, safe harbors accomplish nothing and serve no purpose. The service provider does become liable for pre-1972 infringing works, and it does become their duty to proactively look for and eliminate them -- which means looking through all works uploaded to the service.
Imagine, as a weird hypothetical to extend on your comparison, the Gun Control Act were amended (the same way the DMCA amended the Copyright Act) to state that pawn shops can buy and sell guns in sealed, unmarked containers without looking inside them (i'm not sure if that makes any sense legally but I'm stretching a bit to make the comparison). Now imagine a court said that's true, BUT it can't apply to pre-1899 guns since the GCA doesn't apply to those, so you still have to open those boxes. But there's no way to tell which boxes have pre-1899 guns and which ones don't. Thus the new provision is effectively useless.
On the post: The Copyright Lobotomy: How Intellectual Property Makes Us Pretend To Be Stupid
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)
On the post: The Copyright Lobotomy: How Intellectual Property Makes Us Pretend To Be Stupid
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)
On the post: The Copy Culture Cryptic Crossword
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Almost done?
On the post: The Copyright Lobotomy: How Intellectual Property Makes Us Pretend To Be Stupid
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.
Next >>