Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan
The "abandon copyright" idea is as empty and ultimately unproductive as abandoning speeding laws because they don't catch all the speeders.
|
I wasn't going to respond too your post because of its emotionally charged empty statements. But this last analogy is pertinent.
Most of the available evidence on speeding laws says that they do not reduce fatalities or accidents. In Montana, for instance, the full repeal of speeding laws was followed by a decline in accidents and fatalities. The German Autobahn has no speed limit and is much safer than US highways.
I think this analogy, however, can be helpful in thinking about copyright. The National Speeding Laws were passed in 1974 to reduce energy consumption, although it was also rationalized that they would also make the roads safer. When the National Speeding Law was repealed in 1994, most states decided to keep speeding laws on the belief that they made roads safer (in spite of any available evidence to prove that point).
-Speeding laws in general do not reduce accidents. The reason is that people are not stupid; they generally drive at speeds that they can handle.
http://www.motorists.org/speed-limit...its#CONCLUSION
“The speed of traffic is self-regulating, flow becomes uniform as congestion increases and the speed of traffic in not effected or influenced by posted speed limits nor are the nature and type of accidents that do occur.
Conversely, when the conditions become light, you do see increases in speed differentials and during these light free-flowing periods' accidents for any reason drop to negligible rates.”
In the same way, copyright in general does not thwart piracy, nor does it accomplish the goal of increasing compensation for artists.
-The only real effect of speeding laws is to "criminalize" a large percentage of the population, as well as to drive up legal and enforcement costs. A similar thing can be said about copyright laws today.
-The most effective way to reduce traffic accidents and fatalities is not traffic laws, but through improved highway structure:
“There is a direct correlation between accident rates and flow conflict points; converging highways and interchanges. The accident rates at these locations are primarily a design question regarding methods used to allow traffic to egress and ingress into the stream or converge. If they are too close to each other rates increase exponentially. Once the stream clears these conflict points the accident rates drop precipitously.”
In the same way, the most effective way to increase artist compensation may not be to pass stricter IP laws or to more vigorously enforce them, but to develop more effective and efficient compensation structures.
-As technology changed, so did people's driving speed.
“It is time to accept the fact that increases in speed are the natural byproduct of advancing technology. Therefore, the focus needs to be on flow management and making sure the devices are only used when they have a real expectation of accomplishing their desired effect...”
When automobiles first came out, there was poor steering technology, wheels, and suspensions and the roads were not paved. This meant that driving more than 20 or 30 miles an hour was very dangerous. As roads improved as well as automobile technology, it became safer to drive at faster speeds. Imagine if we based our traffic laws today on what was safe in the early twentieth century. Unfortunately, we have traffic laws today that are based on automobile technology and highway structures of the 70s, even though both automobile technology and highway structures have dramatically improved since then.
In similar fashion, as technology has changed, so has the way people consume and acquire media. The first copyright laws were not meant to be restrictions on consumers, but on publishers. They were never meant to deal with a situation where consumers, not publishers, would be the most prolific copiers.
Your assumption seems to be that, because we have speeding laws, they must be effective, and the fact that the vast majority of the population regularly disregards speed limits only means we need greater enforcement. There doesn't seem to be any scrutiny as to whether speed limits actually accomplish what they are meant to accomplish. Now, there is an argument that we should have speed limits, but they should be much higher:
“On urban roadways the 85th percentile speed has been found to be the safest speed, where the 85th exceeds 50 mph the safest speed shifts to the 90th percentile. Speed limits established on the basis of the 85th percentile on urban roadways conform to the consensus of those who drive highways as to what speed is reasonable and prudent, and are not dependent on the judgement of one or a few individuals.”
The fact that so many people speed is evidence that improvements in automobile technology have made it safer to drive at faster speeds, and the laws should take into account the effects of these changes in technology.
In the same way, your assumption seems to be that copyright is the most effective way to ensure artist compensation. Copyright laws should take into account changes in technology rather than trying to make technology conform to a nineteenth century paradigm.
-Speeding laws have become scoff law:
This process has conditioned motorists to disregard speed limit signs at wholesale levels. In the name of safety, Government agencies have also been allowed to unwisely use stop signs, double yellow lines etc. Again, because the public has found that violating them represents a low risk for being involved in an accident, they are now disregarding these devices too. The people being regulated do think; they are not sheep, when they realize there is no justification; they act accordingly. Like crying wolf, this has lessened the effectiveness of all traffic devices where there is a real need and justification...
So has copyright law. a recent Danish study found that most people find piracy to be, in some form or another, socially acceptable.
http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news...able-says-poll
You can either try to criminalize what people find socially acceptable (as with Prohibition) or you can try to find out solutions to achieve the purpose of copyright.
Or, you can dismiss anyone who makes arguments contrary to your beliefs with emotionally charged statements.