I never said anything different. I merely made reference to how ideas and expressions of ideas are inherently different to physical property through various characteristics, like how they can remain with an individual without the fixed form, and how modern technology provides capabilities that are not the same as traditional ways of spreading ideas and expressions like books.
Treating them as if they're the same is your down fall.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
I asked you to correct me if I was wrong. If I have no idea what I'm talking about (and you apparently do), then please do correct me.
As it stands, when cornered, you merely refer to me as being silly and talk about how I know nothing. If you cannot provide even a remote idea about how I am wrong, then either you either cannot or are simply not interested in honest debate in the first place and want to stir the hive so to speak.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
lolwut?
You admit that an extension of copyright over already existing works obviously not give incentive as works it would cover had already been created. So why have a retroactive extension in the first place? You just defied your own argument. If retroactive extensions are not needed as works that would be covered by them already exist anyway, then there's no reason to make the extension retroactive in the first place.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
It's a strawman to say that the pro-copyright side is arguing that copyright is the ONLY way to incentivize people. That's never been the argument.
It's also a strawman to claim I said something I did not. What I did say was that to assert that copyright works merely because an author believes they have benefited or will benefit from it is a pretty crappy measure of how well a system works, and that there are alternative means that do not require or rely far less on copyright whilst providing just as good if not better incentives to create and produces a socially better system. Seems better to me to educate people about these means and use this to inform law, rather than having copyright exist because an author believes they need it and count that as an example of a working system.
To me, the system works because people are in fact incentivized to create new works by copyright.
I see very few given incentive by copyright. I see large media companies complaining constantly that copyright doesn't go far enough, demanding 3rd parties like Google to filter content for them that they don't like and that said industry is doomed without action whilst simultaneously making billions every year, whilst small artists are finding more ways to make money with means that don't involve locking up the content with copyright.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
Tell you what, actually describe where I am wrong and maybe I'll be inclined to listen. Telling me I'm a silly person isn't a convincing argument, especially when it doesn't in any way describe why it is I'm wrong.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
That is an example of copyright working.
Except if alternative means can create a better situation for all including the artists themselves, in which case it would not be working and it would be misinformation to say that copyright is needed, to assert that authors that believe it is needed are right and that therefore copyright is doing its job to incentivise people.
To you, a system can be considered working merely because people believe it has worked and believed they needed it. This entire site is dedicated to showing alternative means that produce a better off situation for all without copyright and provide just as much if not more incentive to craete. Building systems based on effectively fantasies that create inefficiencies are not what I consider working systems, and that educating people on better, more efficient means of authors to earn money for their work is far more productive.
The definition of a working system is not based on whether people believe themselves to have needed it and in turn incentivised by that, but the reality of how it works, its efficiencies and inefficiencies, its social costs and how they measure up to the goal. Copyright is far from working in most of those regards.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
It appears you didn't read what I said on second glance. You asserted that public domain only applies if an unpublished work has already been copyrighted, and that for something to be public domain, it must have already been put under copyright.
This is not true.
Granting copyright on unpublished works guarantees that they entire the public domain once the exclusive rights have expired.
Huh? If an unpublished work is not copyrighted, how does it enter the public domain?
Whether this is merely bad wording or misinterpretation on my part or not I have no idea, but to clarify, if an unpublished work is not copyrighted for whatever reason, then it must by definition be public domain. If an unpublished work is copyrighted (which by default it is) then it may eventually fall into the public domain, but this is not a guarantee when you consider semi-regular demand for extensions to copyright protection and Congress saying the limited times clause is not in itself a restriction on how long copyright can last.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
Doesn't matter what you think sorry, what matters is reality. Works not covered by copyright are automatically considered public domain. Public domain is the lack of copyright restrictions, not a stamp of having been through a process of being copyrighted and fallen out of it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
Ah, the stick your head in the sand approach, fantastic. I guess you're in the group who'd rather have their fantasies indulged rather than apply critical thinking and any semblance of an actual thought process.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
Huh? If an unpublished work is not copyrighted, how does it enter the public domain?
Wow...just wow.
Public domain is any work not covered by copyright. Public domain is not something that is asserted or registered, it is a state that describes any work not covered by copyright. An unpublished work not covered by copyright would automatically mean is it in the public domain.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
And it's not that such an author needs copyright, it's that copyright is available to them if they want it.
Copyright as a system assumes they need it. Copyright applies from the moment of creation without any need to think or express any preference that can be considered choice on the artists part. Copyright was created because it was assumed it was a needed system to address economic pressures assumed to not work in favour of society.
If an author creates a work, incentivized in the knowledge that they will get exclusive rights in their creation, then copyright worked in that case.
So it's irrelevant as to how efficient a system is, whether there are alternatives and whether those alternatives are better, so long as someone *believes* they needed it, it worked? That sounds like a fantastic way to build a false economy with enforced inefficiency that's worse off for all. Copyright assumes that is needed to address an economic inefficiency, not because authors only create when given exclusive control over something out of belief they need it.
o you want to take that choice away from them?
Yes, if the choice isn't even needed and has no benefits to society other than engaging in someones delusions. I can certainly allow them to believe they need copyright or some other means to enforce exclusive control, I can certainly allow them to try and create contractual agreements or build software that blocks unauthorised copying, but that doesn't automagically deserve the full backing of laws like copyright merely because they believe they need it.
Far better for everyone to educate them on how everyone can be better off - including the artists - without the need for such systems and without enforcing inefficiency.
All physical property is inherently scarce in that if I have it, you do not. That is what gives it tradeable, alienable value that allows it to be relatively easily governed by law, and without law, by force.
The same is not true of ideas and expressions of them, in which to remove them once I am in possession is impossible as they remain in mind or invasive as they exist in modern storage like hard drives, CD's and through distribution means like bittorrent, or if I have exclusive ownership (the idea exists only within my head at this time) may require extremes like torture for me to give up which is already governed by laws.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
Not putting copyright on unpublished works guarantees they enter the public domain from the beginning. Why you need copyright to guarantee entry to public domain is beyond me.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
Which assumes that copyright does the job it's intended. An author can be just as misinformed to his ability to make a living (and perhaps a better one) without copyright and think that copyright is needed, and lumped in the "was given incentive" pile.
An author believing they need copyright is is just as much correlation as that in itself can be misinformation of the author in how he/she can and does make money.
On the post: Would Copyright Work Better If It Was Treated More Like Property?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
P.S. I have an odd feeling this is Average Joe
On the post: Would Copyright Work Better If It Was Treated More Like Property?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
On the post: Would Copyright Work Better If It Was Treated More Like Property?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Treating them as if they're the same is your down fall.
On the post: Would Copyright Work Better If It Was Treated More Like Property?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
As it stands, when cornered, you merely refer to me as being silly and talk about how I know nothing. If you cannot provide even a remote idea about how I am wrong, then either you either cannot or are simply not interested in honest debate in the first place and want to stir the hive so to speak.
On the post: Would Copyright Work Better If It Was Treated More Like Property?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
On the post: Would Copyright Work Better If It Was Treated More Like Property?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
You admit that an extension of copyright over already existing works obviously not give incentive as works it would cover had already been created. So why have a retroactive extension in the first place? You just defied your own argument. If retroactive extensions are not needed as works that would be covered by them already exist anyway, then there's no reason to make the extension retroactive in the first place.
On the post: Would Copyright Work Better If It Was Treated More Like Property?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
It's also a strawman to claim I said something I did not. What I did say was that to assert that copyright works merely because an author believes they have benefited or will benefit from it is a pretty crappy measure of how well a system works, and that there are alternative means that do not require or rely far less on copyright whilst providing just as good if not better incentives to create and produces a socially better system. Seems better to me to educate people about these means and use this to inform law, rather than having copyright exist because an author believes they need it and count that as an example of a working system.
I see very few given incentive by copyright. I see large media companies complaining constantly that copyright doesn't go far enough, demanding 3rd parties like Google to filter content for them that they don't like and that said industry is doomed without action whilst simultaneously making billions every year, whilst small artists are finding more ways to make money with means that don't involve locking up the content with copyright.
On the post: Would Copyright Work Better If It Was Treated More Like Property?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
On the post: Would Copyright Work Better If It Was Treated More Like Property?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
Except if alternative means can create a better situation for all including the artists themselves, in which case it would not be working and it would be misinformation to say that copyright is needed, to assert that authors that believe it is needed are right and that therefore copyright is doing its job to incentivise people.
To you, a system can be considered working merely because people believe it has worked and believed they needed it. This entire site is dedicated to showing alternative means that produce a better off situation for all without copyright and provide just as much if not more incentive to craete. Building systems based on effectively fantasies that create inefficiencies are not what I consider working systems, and that educating people on better, more efficient means of authors to earn money for their work is far more productive.
The definition of a working system is not based on whether people believe themselves to have needed it and in turn incentivised by that, but the reality of how it works, its efficiencies and inefficiencies, its social costs and how they measure up to the goal. Copyright is far from working in most of those regards.
http://www.eff.org/wp/unintended-consequences-under-dmca
On the post: Would Copyright Work Better If It Was Treated More Like Property?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
This is not true.
Whether this is merely bad wording or misinterpretation on my part or not I have no idea, but to clarify, if an unpublished work is not copyrighted for whatever reason, then it must by definition be public domain. If an unpublished work is copyrighted (which by default it is) then it may eventually fall into the public domain, but this is not a guarantee when you consider semi-regular demand for extensions to copyright protection and Congress saying the limited times clause is not in itself a restriction on how long copyright can last.
On the post: Would Copyright Work Better If It Was Treated More Like Property?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
On the post: Would Copyright Work Better If It Was Treated More Like Property?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
On the post: Would Copyright Work Better If It Was Treated More Like Property?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
On the post: Would Copyright Work Better If It Was Treated More Like Property?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
Copyright as a system assumes they need it. Copyright applies from the moment of creation without any need to think or express any preference that can be considered choice on the artists part. Copyright was created because it was assumed it was a needed system to address economic pressures assumed to not work in favour of society.
So it's irrelevant as to how efficient a system is, whether there are alternatives and whether those alternatives are better, so long as someone *believes* they needed it, it worked? That sounds like a fantastic way to build a false economy with enforced inefficiency that's worse off for all. Copyright assumes that is needed to address an economic inefficiency, not because authors only create when given exclusive control over something out of belief they need it.
Yes, if the choice isn't even needed and has no benefits to society other than engaging in someones delusions. I can certainly allow them to believe they need copyright or some other means to enforce exclusive control, I can certainly allow them to try and create contractual agreements or build software that blocks unauthorised copying, but that doesn't automagically deserve the full backing of laws like copyright merely because they believe they need it.
Far better for everyone to educate them on how everyone can be better off - including the artists - without the need for such systems and without enforcing inefficiency.
On the post: Would Copyright Work Better If It Was Treated More Like Property?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The same is not true of ideas and expressions of them, in which to remove them once I am in possession is impossible as they remain in mind or invasive as they exist in modern storage like hard drives, CD's and through distribution means like bittorrent, or if I have exclusive ownership (the idea exists only within my head at this time) may require extremes like torture for me to give up which is already governed by laws.
On the post: Would Copyright Work Better If It Was Treated More Like Property?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
On the post: Would Copyright Work Better If It Was Treated More Like Property?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
An author believing they need copyright is is just as much correlation as that in itself can be misinformation of the author in how he/she can and does make money.
On the post: Would Copyright Work Better If It Was Treated More Like Property?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
On the post: The Impossible Job Of Being The Copyright Czar
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Economist Is The Latest To Recognize The Music Industry Is Thriving
Re:
Next >>