He was able to make a million bucks because he offered people a product they wanted to pay him for. The entire point of the experiment was to get people to choose between getting it for free (which he admitted they could probably do quite easily) and supporting the creator. Each route presented distinct advantages and disadvantages to the consumer, but what on earth would have enticed someone to give money (the disadvantage of the paid option) to get the product from someone other than the creator (the disadvantage of the free option)? You're using a hypothetical harm that [a] never actually manifested and [b] wouldn't make sense to have manifested anyway to justify the necessity of rights that, ultimately, had nothing to do with the experiment's success. And I say this as a supporter of the general notion of copyright.
And if the court deems it isn't slavish copying, that's their prerogative. All I'm asserting is that artists should have some recourse when the copying of their work crosses from inspiration to wholesale misappropriation, whereas some of the comments here are taking an "all copying is good all the time always" approach, which I find slightly obtuse.
I was going to set aside some time to unpack all the assumptions and generalizations you just tossed out, but then I got to the end where you started to personally insult me and realized it's just not worth my time. You're a bomb-thrower, not actually here for civil discussion, but simply to be pejorative against those whose views differ from your own. Thus, I will politely excuse myself to get some actual work accomplished.
Re: Re: Re: Response to: DandonTRJ on Apr 12th, 2012 @ 4:28pm
I'm all for open source. I believe that there is plenty of progress that can be made and social utility gleaned from products that lack copyright, that crowd-source and spread as widely as possible. But there are also products that are not economically feasible without the benefits of copyright, and I believe the world is better off having both sides of the coin. Just because copyright maximalists ignore the proper balance (mindful that, as Mike often writes about, copyright isn't necessary as zero-sum game) doesn't mean that copyright minimalists should feel free to do the same, not if they want to be seen as taking the higher road on the issue.
As for your argument that she didn't do the work, that's like saying an architect didn't do any work when a contractor uses their blueprint without paying them. They laid the foundation, and it denigrates the value of that labor to claim that they should have no equitable claim in such a scenario.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: DandonTRJ on Apr 12th, 2012 @ 4:28pm
Because the mechanisms you've outlined are far less certain to yield the outcome necessary to properly remunerate the wronged artist, and without the knowledge that they have a safety net against unfair competition (i.e. copyright), they may abandon the prospect of being able to self-sustain through their craft. You're making a great case for less zealous copyright enforcement, or at least fewer wishy-washy claims clogging up the court every time someone feels "ripped off" because the general concepts and basic framework of their product has been co-opted, and I'm right there with you. But I still feel like copyright skeptics (of which I am one!) are being a little disingenuous when they say even blatant cases of infringement shouldn't have judicial recourse.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: DandonTRJ on Apr 12th, 2012 @ 4:28pm
For purely utilitarian goods, I would cede the "six billion people" argument. But with artistry, sometimes it's the one that makes an impact the other six billion couldn't. We only have one poet Homer. Only one Shakespeare (depending on what you believe about his authorship). One Beatles. This stuff isn't as fungible as, well, cogs.
Artists' full potential will be extracted by need only if the market ensures there are some mechanisms that allow them to obtain remuneration and fulfill that need - otherwise, they will likely switch to utilitarian work not affected by the lack of scarcity a purely unregulated market creates for so-called intellectual property. Fundamentally, it stems from the notion of unfair competition law. You have invested in a good to sell. Others should not be able to take that good, add nothing substantial of their own, and thus undercut your ability to function in the marketplace. This isn't about piracy, which is a completely separate notion with its own unique concerns. Now we're talking about rival sellers. I feel this is a place where copyright law should be far less controversial than most other facets discussed on Techdirt.
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Calvin on Apr 12th, 2012 @ 4:50pm
I never said anything about value. I said a different sets of concerns. Also, you'd do well not to call me an IP maximalist when I have expressed no such views in this thread (indeed, all I've done is vouch for the utility of copyright in certain limited circumstances - that makes me a maximalist?).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: DandonTRJ on Apr 12th, 2012 @ 4:28pm
Ironically, that's one of the arguments used in the Eldred/Golan cases for putting public domain works back under copyright; they'll be promoted more if we know we can extract monopoly rents from them!
But really, if a great work really has potential to be huge, copyright should serve to encourage partnership ventures, where no one party gets screwed in the process. Encourage the publicity by granting incentives to lift up the original, so the artist responsible is in a better position to create future works of that caliber. Don't shortchange the public of the artist's full potential body of output out of zeal for a completely uninhibited market.
You're consistently refusing to acknowledge any shades of grey in the use of prior art to create new art. Inspiration and slavish copying are not the same thing, and wider culture (along with every modern legal regime) has validated the distinction. You would do well to acknowledge this, if only to then try to explain why that distinction should not be.
You're assuming the changes were what made it valuable. That the "new version" succeeded on those merits, rather than by the position those who copied were in to launch it. In such a case, their contributions may merely be cloaking what was really valuable about the song - everything that was copied. Arguments can be made both ways, and it doesn't seem intellectually honest to presume one over the other without more data. More fundamentally, if the improvements were more important to its success, why not license the arrangement on the cheap knowing that the raw material being procured isn't as valuable as what they would have to add?
Re: Re: Re: Response to: DandonTRJ on Apr 12th, 2012 @ 4:28pm
You're comparing the complexity of an artistic work to a pizza recipie? There's a reason why recipes can almost never be covered by copyright, and it's the same reason your analogy breaks down; we're talking about completely different types of "works" with an infinitely greater potential for variation in one. And you continue to conflate inspiration with slavish copying as though they are one in the same. They most certainly are not. I say this as a devoted Techdirt reader - unwillingness to explore a middle ground on these issues is what relegates so many anti-maximalist opinions to wingnutty categorization (and consequentially irrelevance). Let's not be our own worst enemies here.
Re: Response to: DandonTRJ on Apr 12th, 2012 @ 4:28pm
You write a book. I copy the book with only minor tweaks. I market it better than you and profit, your version is crowded out of the market, you abandon ever following up on the work. Fair? I don't think so. The kind of thing we'd like to encourage in the market? I don't think so. I know the "free riding" term has been hijacked by Levine and others, but I think it has utility in the discussion despite their lobbyist hyperbole. There are ways to profit off the infringement of your works, true. But I don't think it should supplant the ability to discourage others from SLAVISH mimicry through the judicial system. Emphasis on SLAVISH. I fully support remix culture, borrowing from prior works, etc. But there should always be a line. Perhaps one set higher than the current stifling one. But a line nonetheless.
Dn't be stupid. She never claimed copyright on the weather metaphor. She claimed copyright on a song that incorporates the metaphor into a multitude of other elements, enough of which she believes were copied to constitute infringement. If you're going to critique, at least be intellectually honest about it.
I have a feeling that a lot of the usual Techdirt lurkers are not going to receive this post well. But it's an excellent post. Even as copyright skeptics, we should be willing to admit there is a difference between borrowing bits and pieces versus wholesale slavish copying. The former gains us new works merely using the old ones as a platform. The second is free riding without any substantial contribution to justify the ripping off of the original artist. There is a place in this world for both remixing and copyright enforcement. Let's not allow disdain of the current system's overreaches to deny its utility in the truly egregious cases.
Recall that Issa was initially on the wrong side of the Research Works Act until the Internet informed him of its flawed nature. Contrary to how you may like to frame things, our community's supporters are just that -- supporters. Not saints. We have no problem calling them out when they go astray. It's kind of part and parcel of the whole "staying principled" thing. Other factions may want to try it out sometime.
I can't count the number of times I've read Supreme Court cases that are purely functional rather than intellectual. Many times Justices perceive deviating from past practice at all to be rocking the boat, even if adherence to stare decisis has already steered them into a tempest. You only need to look at the Golan decision (and its immediate predecessors) to see that play out.
On the post: Paramount Thinks That Louis CK Making $1 Million In 12 Days Means He's Not Monetizing
Re: "not rely on copyright"
On the post: A Perspective On The Complexities Of Copyright And Creativity From A Victim Of Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lies
On the post: A Perspective On The Complexities Of Copyright And Creativity From A Victim Of Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lies
On the post: A Perspective On The Complexities Of Copyright And Creativity From A Victim Of Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Response to: DandonTRJ on Apr 12th, 2012 @ 4:28pm
As for your argument that she didn't do the work, that's like saying an architect didn't do any work when a contractor uses their blueprint without paying them. They laid the foundation, and it denigrates the value of that labor to claim that they should have no equitable claim in such a scenario.
On the post: A Perspective On The Complexities Of Copyright And Creativity From A Victim Of Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: DandonTRJ on Apr 12th, 2012 @ 4:28pm
On the post: A Perspective On The Complexities Of Copyright And Creativity From A Victim Of Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: DandonTRJ on Apr 12th, 2012 @ 4:28pm
Artists' full potential will be extracted by need only if the market ensures there are some mechanisms that allow them to obtain remuneration and fulfill that need - otherwise, they will likely switch to utilitarian work not affected by the lack of scarcity a purely unregulated market creates for so-called intellectual property. Fundamentally, it stems from the notion of unfair competition law. You have invested in a good to sell. Others should not be able to take that good, add nothing substantial of their own, and thus undercut your ability to function in the marketplace. This isn't about piracy, which is a completely separate notion with its own unique concerns. Now we're talking about rival sellers. I feel this is a place where copyright law should be far less controversial than most other facets discussed on Techdirt.
On the post: A Perspective On The Complexities Of Copyright And Creativity From A Victim Of Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Calvin on Apr 12th, 2012 @ 4:50pm
On the post: A Perspective On The Complexities Of Copyright And Creativity From A Victim Of Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: DandonTRJ on Apr 12th, 2012 @ 4:28pm
But really, if a great work really has potential to be huge, copyright should serve to encourage partnership ventures, where no one party gets screwed in the process. Encourage the publicity by granting incentives to lift up the original, so the artist responsible is in a better position to create future works of that caliber. Don't shortchange the public of the artist's full potential body of output out of zeal for a completely uninhibited market.
On the post: A Perspective On The Complexities Of Copyright And Creativity From A Victim Of Infringement
Re: Re: Lies
On the post: A Perspective On The Complexities Of Copyright And Creativity From A Victim Of Infringement
Re: Response to: Calvin on Apr 12th, 2012 @ 4:50pm
On the post: A Perspective On The Complexities Of Copyright And Creativity From A Victim Of Infringement
Re: Overvaluing Your Content
On the post: A Perspective On The Complexities Of Copyright And Creativity From A Victim Of Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Response to: DandonTRJ on Apr 12th, 2012 @ 4:28pm
More to the point, though, what of my second question? Is it something to systematically encourage?
On the post: A Perspective On The Complexities Of Copyright And Creativity From A Victim Of Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Response to: DandonTRJ on Apr 12th, 2012 @ 4:28pm
On the post: A Perspective On The Complexities Of Copyright And Creativity From A Victim Of Infringement
Re: Response to: DandonTRJ on Apr 12th, 2012 @ 4:28pm
On the post: A Perspective On The Complexities Of Copyright And Creativity From A Victim Of Infringement
Re:
On the post: A Perspective On The Complexities Of Copyright And Creativity From A Victim Of Infringement
On the post: Yes, Copyright's Sole Purpose Is To Benefit The Public
Re:
I would recommend putting off beating your chest until you remove your head from your ass.
On the post: CISPA Is A Really Bad Bill, And Here's Why
Re:
FTFY
On the post: CISPA Is A Really Bad Bill, And Here's Why
Re:
On the post: Viacom Didn't Actually 'Win' Against YouTube, But The Appeals Court Ruling Is Still Dangerous
Re:
Next >>