The moral dimension of copyright has another name: defamation. And it should be covered under extensions of libel laws, not putting it under an umbrella called "copyright" (although, I hope nobody uses the current abomination of English libel laws as an example).
If you don't want your works to be associated with ideas you don't like, for example Nazism, then have it a legal requirement for all derived works to have an "UNOFFICIAL" tag on them, and have them state where they are derived from, explicitly saying that the representations of the derived work have nothing to do with the original. People can naturally tell originals from knock-offs like this as we have learned from the fashion industry.
And on this question of "yeah well the audience will still make the false connection unconsciously" let us really examine this for just one second. How could you have possibly known that a cartoon show about ponies that was made for a niche market of 6-year-olds... would turn into an international cult following, where fanbases full of grown-up males parade the ponies on T-Shirts in anime conventions all over the world claiming a 20% increase in coolness. This is not something you could have possibly foreseen, and neither could copyright.
The lesson derived here, as well as the false images that people get associated with anyway (Richard Dawkins is not "strident" and Christopher Hitchens is not a "neocon"/"liberal hawk") that it doesn't matter what you do, copyright or not, people will always find a way to defame you even a little bit. And since this is the case, you are better off not bringing in a ridiculous copyright law full of double standards and inconsistencies in order to do something which comes naturally to humans anyway.
When there is a culture of fear, there is cause for alarm. Anyone who delves even a little bit into history can tell you that. If people are scared to release works because they may be infringing on a copyright somewhere in the country, or the world, there is something indisputably wrong.
I am personally glad that the internet has raised a generation of people who hate copyright laws. It means conditions are set for probable revolution. You can see it in the Pirate Party, revolts against dumb legislation like SOPA, etc and they are leading to moments of madness, such as EMI literally trying to stamp on free trade by trying to forbid the resale of digital downloads on the premise that their own consumers are guilty until proven innocent. It's insufferable. And you've also got Steam and other gaming publishers trying to eliminate the concept of swapping games with one another by likewise monopolising over free trade with everyone-pays schemes. Not to mention that the monopolisation of closed-systems like iOS as a means of pursuing this idea further... Just wait until DVDs, books, music CDs etc stop selling so that everyone is forced to buy closed systems where all media is tagged, monitored, you have to be online to experience any creativity, and it becomes impossible to publish and make money without surrendering your copyright to someone for them to override (short of self-publishing, which sets up an unfair marketing principle). Then watch as the lobbying pressure to make illegal open-source systems (and open-source software, and hell the public domain entirely) becomes enormous, because it poses as the "bigger threat".
Kickstarter proves that the free-rider problem in artistic expression is no longer an issue. These guys are going to be the centre of the revolution, not Spotify or Netflix in my opinion. And once corporate promoters start jumping on the bandwagon and making profits for raising awareness of certain projects, you will start seeing people paying not for the making of artistic content, but the RELEASE of the content with the funds going to make NEW content, which in turn will be released if it raises enough money. I predict that this will be Kickstarter's major change in the future.
All-or-nothing crowdfunding has technically been around since the whole idea of music gigs, theatre gigs, cinema viewings, etc. Because if many people pay for a ticket, and the showing doesn't happen due to unforeseen circumstances, they can get their money back. By definition, that is all-or-nothing crowdfunding. The internet has now "increased the stadium size" if I can use that expression, or the "cinema size", or the "theatre size". Money for creativity was meant to be raised not by focusing on the copies themselves, but by expanding the platform of your audience and getting them all to pay simultaneously. "Virtual tickets" is going to be the way to go. And history seems to be on it's side: Youtube, Live Streaming, Radio Podcasts, Blogging...
Is there anyone here who doubts that Justin Bieber would make a lot more money under Kickstarter than he would under a label, simply for releasing a new album he had stored away ages ago? Or what if he did another version of "Baby" using crowdfunding? What if he charged for a live broadcast of it over LiveStream for X number of viewers? Complete with a bonus price for interaction with him and song requests?
If I were a big copyright lobbyist, the first thing I would do is try to make crowdfunding illegal right now. Or try to patent it, like someone tried with Kickstarter not long ago. This war is coming and you'd better be ready for it.
If I were part of some big copyright industry, I'd personally lobby to make crowdfunding illegal, based on supposedly altruistic grounds of protecting the consumer.
Otherwise my incentive-based business model would end up screwed in years to come.
Raise hell when it happens. Because if/when it does, it really will be a declaration of war on creativity.
And if the copyright industries had any guts at all, they would not go after Google or YouTube or the odd kid from another country who uploads links to material. They would go after the ISPs. As well as those who sell CDs and DVDs on ebay. Or screw that, just ebay in general.
I'll just lie back and await the inevitable all-or-nothing crowdfunding revolution to take place. At least 80% of Kickstarter's projects are with creative industries such as music, film, books etc - it doesn't surprise me. I'm just waiting for a big band like Radiohead to experiment with it since they've proven before that they can and will experiment with new models, and when they make more money than they could have ever dreamed under a label with countless middlemen I shall laugh and laugh seeing the smile from copyright believers fading from their faces.
... and then be up in arms when they try to lobby governments to get crowdfunding made illegal for supposedly altruistic reasons of protecting the consumer from non-existent get-rich-quick threats. Or accuse Kickstarter of aiding piracy. Or terrorism.
On the post: No, Copyright Is Not A Human Right
Morals
If you don't want your works to be associated with ideas you don't like, for example Nazism, then have it a legal requirement for all derived works to have an "UNOFFICIAL" tag on them, and have them state where they are derived from, explicitly saying that the representations of the derived work have nothing to do with the original. People can naturally tell originals from knock-offs like this as we have learned from the fashion industry.
And on this question of "yeah well the audience will still make the false connection unconsciously" let us really examine this for just one second. How could you have possibly known that a cartoon show about ponies that was made for a niche market of 6-year-olds... would turn into an international cult following, where fanbases full of grown-up males parade the ponies on T-Shirts in anime conventions all over the world claiming a 20% increase in coolness. This is not something you could have possibly foreseen, and neither could copyright.
The lesson derived here, as well as the false images that people get associated with anyway (Richard Dawkins is not "strident" and Christopher Hitchens is not a "neocon"/"liberal hawk") that it doesn't matter what you do, copyright or not, people will always find a way to defame you even a little bit. And since this is the case, you are better off not bringing in a ridiculous copyright law full of double standards and inconsistencies in order to do something which comes naturally to humans anyway.
On the post: Veteran Parodist Turns To Kickstarter To Fund Downton Abbey Spoof After Publisher Gets Spooked
I am personally glad that the internet has raised a generation of people who hate copyright laws. It means conditions are set for probable revolution. You can see it in the Pirate Party, revolts against dumb legislation like SOPA, etc and they are leading to moments of madness, such as EMI literally trying to stamp on free trade by trying to forbid the resale of digital downloads on the premise that their own consumers are guilty until proven innocent. It's insufferable. And you've also got Steam and other gaming publishers trying to eliminate the concept of swapping games with one another by likewise monopolising over free trade with everyone-pays schemes. Not to mention that the monopolisation of closed-systems like iOS as a means of pursuing this idea further... Just wait until DVDs, books, music CDs etc stop selling so that everyone is forced to buy closed systems where all media is tagged, monitored, you have to be online to experience any creativity, and it becomes impossible to publish and make money without surrendering your copyright to someone for them to override (short of self-publishing, which sets up an unfair marketing principle). Then watch as the lobbying pressure to make illegal open-source systems (and open-source software, and hell the public domain entirely) becomes enormous, because it poses as the "bigger threat".
Kickstarter proves that the free-rider problem in artistic expression is no longer an issue. These guys are going to be the centre of the revolution, not Spotify or Netflix in my opinion. And once corporate promoters start jumping on the bandwagon and making profits for raising awareness of certain projects, you will start seeing people paying not for the making of artistic content, but the RELEASE of the content with the funds going to make NEW content, which in turn will be released if it raises enough money. I predict that this will be Kickstarter's major change in the future.
All-or-nothing crowdfunding has technically been around since the whole idea of music gigs, theatre gigs, cinema viewings, etc. Because if many people pay for a ticket, and the showing doesn't happen due to unforeseen circumstances, they can get their money back. By definition, that is all-or-nothing crowdfunding. The internet has now "increased the stadium size" if I can use that expression, or the "cinema size", or the "theatre size". Money for creativity was meant to be raised not by focusing on the copies themselves, but by expanding the platform of your audience and getting them all to pay simultaneously. "Virtual tickets" is going to be the way to go. And history seems to be on it's side: Youtube, Live Streaming, Radio Podcasts, Blogging...
Is there anyone here who doubts that Justin Bieber would make a lot more money under Kickstarter than he would under a label, simply for releasing a new album he had stored away ages ago? Or what if he did another version of "Baby" using crowdfunding? What if he charged for a live broadcast of it over LiveStream for X number of viewers? Complete with a bonus price for interaction with him and song requests?
If I were a big copyright lobbyist, the first thing I would do is try to make crowdfunding illegal right now. Or try to patent it, like someone tried with Kickstarter not long ago. This war is coming and you'd better be ready for it.
On the post: 10 Lessons That Made Dimeword's Kickstarter Campaign A Success
Otherwise my incentive-based business model would end up screwed in years to come.
Raise hell when it happens. Because if/when it does, it really will be a declaration of war on creativity.
On the post: Copyright Killbots Strike Again: Official DNC Livestream Taken Down By Just About Every Copyright Holder
And if the copyright industries had any guts at all, they would not go after Google or YouTube or the odd kid from another country who uploads links to material. They would go after the ISPs. As well as those who sell CDs and DVDs on ebay. Or screw that, just ebay in general.
I'll just lie back and await the inevitable all-or-nothing crowdfunding revolution to take place. At least 80% of Kickstarter's projects are with creative industries such as music, film, books etc - it doesn't surprise me. I'm just waiting for a big band like Radiohead to experiment with it since they've proven before that they can and will experiment with new models, and when they make more money than they could have ever dreamed under a label with countless middlemen I shall laugh and laugh seeing the smile from copyright believers fading from their faces.
... and then be up in arms when they try to lobby governments to get crowdfunding made illegal for supposedly altruistic reasons of protecting the consumer from non-existent get-rich-quick threats. Or accuse Kickstarter of aiding piracy. Or terrorism.
Next >>