View Single Post
Old 12-11-2009, 08:47 AM   #76
Greg Anos
Grand Sorcerer
Greg Anos ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Greg Anos ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Greg Anos ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Greg Anos ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Greg Anos ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Greg Anos ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Greg Anos ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Greg Anos ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Greg Anos ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Greg Anos ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Greg Anos ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 11,531
Karma: 37057604
Join Date: Jan 2008
Device: Pocketbook
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga View Post


Your link doesn't work, but I assume it points what I already know: that the 2 modifications to copyright durations were retroactive and resulted in extending existing copyrights. Meanwhile, the reality is that there have only been 4 rounds of extensions in the US over the last 200 years. Ergo, as I pointed out before, it is not justifiable to definitively assert that round after round after round of extensions is inevitable and utterly unavoidable.

And those four changes increased the length of copyright from 34 years to in the order of 140+ years. Meanwhile, patent has gone from 34 years to 20 years. Has that meant that nobody invents anymore? I think not. And what would happen if you made patent law match copyright law? Retroactively, just like copyright has been. Think of the patent trolling that would go on...




Oh? As Kolenka also points out, open software licenses are copyright licenses. Thus, the enforcement of licenses like the GPL are explicitly based on copyright. So if you abolish copyright, you lose your ability to enforce your open license.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga View Post
You might make the argument that "free software demonstrates that you don't have to charge money for your creative output." And I've stated several times that copyright grants you the option to give your content away for free (without worrying about someone else profiting off of it, unless you somehow put it directly into public domain). However, so far it's proving rather difficult (although far from impossible) to run a viable business with an open source model, even if you start out with that as your explicit goal. Many (if not most) of the big dogs in software are all still proprietary: Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, Adobe, EA, etc.

Now, I will agree to some points, namely:

• cost of producing and distributing some types of content will fall
• "free" options (notably ad-supported and promotional use) will continue, and almost certainly become more common
• some businesses will survive, and possibly flourish, using a more open model than current proprietary businesses

But while you can have dozens of amateur writers cranking out fanfics of various quality in their bedrooms and release it for free, it's still going to cost millions of dollars and require scores of professionals to produce the TV series that is the object of said fan's affection. Or, let's take the archetypal rock band; you've got 4 people who are (hopefully) good at writing and performing songs. But this does not mean they are also good recording engineers, know how to master their recordings properly (let alone well), book shows, do promotion in cities where they don't live, set up the equipment and do the sound at live shows, advertise their recordings, design their album covers and t-shirts and graphics, handle their own accounts and taxes, get their songs on the radio, direct their own videos, make CD's, get the CD's into stores or songs onto iTunes, and so forth. At least, if you want to sell more than 5,000 copies and play in clubs with a max capacity of 100, sooner or later you're going to have to get a lot of people to work on your behalf -- and they can't all afford to work for free.

And most of the "free" options just have other ways of making you pay. Broadcast TV is free, but ad-supported. Do you really want your Harry Potter ebooks to have half-screen ads on every other page? Also, most of the $0.00 Kindle books are set at that price with the intent that if you enjoy that author's work, you will enjoy it enough to subsequently buy other books by that same author.

I.e. there are scores of people, other than the initial creator(s), who are involved in producing and distributing content. Even if it becomes easier for the Lone Genius to produce their works and provide it directly to The Masses, there will always be a need for seasoned professionals who help an artist do their work, and a desire for works more complicated than what one person can produce alone at near-zero costs. You'll still need an orchestra and a chorus to do opera, extras to film movies, marketers to break out of the noise of the masses of free content.... Doing anything more ambitious than a volume of poetry is almost certainly going to require resources and skills far beyond the ability of a single individual to amass.

I.e. even if there is far more free content available in the future, if the quality of said free content rises, and even if today's media titans are destroyed by the technological changes: Paid content, publishers, and other middle-men aren't going to disappear.

Please look at Hong Kong television. It is heavily pirated. To create a show there, you have to have your cost structure such that advertising pays for the cost of the show (plus a profit) on the first run. If you do that, then piracy doesn't halt creation. It does place a cap on what a group can pay for a show. Of course there are no million dollar salaries and residuals, but there are new shows....
Greg Anos is offline   Reply With Quote