[Leyor]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

It doesn't.

Keep in mind that I'm coming from a position that makes no distinction between tangible and intangible property.

We'll try to put aside the fact that I think there's a big distinction between tangible and intangible property. As I won't have time before the weekend to debate that

I'll just quickly list a few negatives for discussion. Keep in mind that, as I wrote before, that my main objective here has been to disprove historically inaccurate statements used to promote a specific agenda . Something I feel I've succeeded at. I don't actually have a black and white position on the topic, but I deplore inaccuracy and wish to debate from a platform, without emotional statements without any solid foundation in facts. I dislike false syllogies and inaccurate analogies.

What folks who wish to abolish copyright want to do is to TAKE AWAY from those who wish to create for money. For those who aren't interested in working for free....who aren't interested in allowing others to modify, adapt, or just plain copy their work without compensation. These folks should have their works stolen from them and given away.

I think it's a weak rhetorical argument to ascribe inaccurate motives and comparisons. It'd be on the same level as saying that I only think people defending Copyrights want to line their fat purses on the expense of intellectual freedom, and defend outdated market models because they lack the imagination to think of anything else, the discussion is alot more nuanced than that, and there's definitely some things inherent in Copyright that'd be harmful to dismiss.

Here's some of the weaknesses of Copyright. Keep in mind I am not discussing the pro's here, simply retorting to the statement that Copyright has no negative consequences. Also keep in mind that Copyright is administered differently in various countries.

Copyright laws allows too broad definitions of what constitutes intangible properties. An example is T-mobile owning the color magenta and subsequently suying others using said color. Why should you be able to own a color? Or a name. From my, admittedly subjective, point of view, something belongs to all of us.

Copyright laws sometimes directly hurts the creators of content.
A lot of publishers began routinely requiring writers to sign contracts that declared that what they wrote was a "work for hire," so that the authors wouldn't own any part of their own work. Of course the companies didn't actually hire the writers and give them benefits, like real employees. Also the way Copyright h administered, atleast here, allows interest organisations to represent authors and artists, even without the artists consent, in some countries this isn't voluntary. In Denmark an organisation representing artists copyrights, actually started billing artists for giving away their content on their own websites.

Copyright protection directly hurts the consumers/users/fans.
Copyright allows groups such as the RIAA to sue common people insane amounts for trivial infringements. It's responsible for DRM which reduces the user experience significantly.

Copyright directly hurts all of us. It allows companies to obtain ownership of cultural treasures, and let them be traded like a commodity. Why does some Beatles song belong to an immortal corporation that can keep trading it forever. They are a cultural treasure and part of our historical identity, like Mozart or Beethoven. Copyright should never extend beyond an authors lifetime.

Copyright hurts innovation. Copyright is being used as a stopgap to prevent a change to new market models. Instead of trying to find ways to benefit the actual authors of content by taking advantage of how easy it is to share and transfer information, companies are clinging to to old models, cracking down hard on anyone who infringes on it. Easy access and sharing is treated more like a threat than an opportunity. The music industry is reluclanty threading new paths with services like Spotify, services that are meeting heavy resistance from the established industry and interests groups. Stop treating every copy like a loss, it actually could be an opportunity.

Give me a day and I'll come with more examples. Keep in mind here, I am responding to the simple statement that Copyright doesn't have any negative sideeffects. It does. I am however not implying that it can't be changed for the better, or that it doesn't have positive sideeffects too.

I do think current terms are too long, and enforcement has reached ridiculous extremes, but that doesn't mean the principle of copyright isn't sound.

When I hear someone talking about "abolishing copyright," what I hear is: "I want to steal your work and make money from it."

I'm glad that you can see some of the ridiculousness behind our current Copyright laws.

What I don't understand is that you as a creative person, can't see that there must be better alternatives that doesn't hurt you or the people who enjoy your works. Why does discussing this automatically have to turn into ascribing people with sinister motives of theft, are we so caught inside this box that we automatically have to assume such a defensive position?

If 10x more people enjoyed your books, but you only earned 1/10th pr. book. Is that nescessarily a loss?

I am not saying that people who create content shouldn't be allowed to be compensated for their work. I am saying that Copyright as it is right now is harmful, and it's in all our interest if its changed. So we need to be able to start picking apart the things we dislike and pressure to get them changed. It'll benefit not just all your fans but you aswell.

I own several hundred books, most are purchased, others are from the public domain. I feel I get good value when I buy a hardcover book, I can keep with me and lend out to my friends. I however refuse to buy e-books with DRM, and I encourage everyone to do the same. Thats one example of how I feel we can influence the market to change.