The Logic Of Copyright

[Leyor]

Ever watched animals just out of the womb, fighting for a place at their mothers breasts? There is nothing to be imprinted, nothing to be learned, pure instinct -- they will defend their place (or they will die, or at least grow up to be weak and small). As you so aptly demonstrate, looking out for your own interest is "built-in". You are not really trying to share what is yours (may I suggest you go to work for free, that would be a selfless act) you want to share what belongs to someone else. You are doing it because of what you think is in it for you.

By that your argument we're no more than children, or acting like children. Sharing and looking out for the common good of our group, are values that some of us obtains the older we grow. Many people do philantrophic work, and while their selfinterest might be served in the sense that they get a sense of fullfillment, they aren't really looking out for their own interests.

Pretty sure that Giggleton isn't looking out for his own self interest, he can download whatever he wants for free, that train has left the station. Instead he's arguing for his ideology. Are they the same, no, while connected ideology is also about what people consider the common good for us as a group.

Copyright is not responsible for DRM. If copyright was abolished, DRM could (and probably would) still exist. DRM is used to enforce copyright, but copyright isn't necessary for DRM to exist. Maybe if copyright hadn't existed in the first place no-one would have invented DRM, but if copyright had never existed, we'd be living in a much different place and many things would be different

Can you clarify this? Because to me it looks very much like your making an argument for how DRM exists because of copyright. Maybe if you provide examples of how DRM would exist without copyright?

[Hellmark]

if Copyright was done away with right now, the publishers would do all they could to make it more difficult to copy, since they would have nothing to protect their investments otherwise.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

if Copyright was done away with right now, the publishers would do all they could to make it more difficult to copy, since they would have nothing to protect their investments otherwise.

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

if Copyright was done away with right now, the publishers would do all they could to make it more difficult to copy, since they would have nothing to protect their investments otherwise.

You're talking about a small minority of publishers, we are all publishers now. Do you mean that copyright is essentially meaningless now anyway?

Also, copying is in our nature, go with the flow as they say.

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Also, copying is in our nature, go with the flow as they say.

So is tribalism and egocentrism.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

So is tribalism and egocentrism.

By nature I meant genetic replication, I would think that tribalism and egocentrism? would have to be learned, although it could be argued that those things are encoded somewhere, or else where would they come from?

[Leyor]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

if Copyright was done away with right now, the publishers would do all they could to make it more difficult to copy, since they would have nothing to protect their investments otherwise.

I agree.

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by avantman42

Copyright is not responsible for DRM. If copyright was abolished, DRM could (and probably would) still exist. DRM is used to enforce copyright, but copyright isn't necessary for DRM to exist.

Originally Posted by Leyor

Can you clarify this? Because to me it looks very much like your making an argument for how DRM exists because of copyright. Maybe if you provide examples of how DRM would exist without copyright?

Originally Posted by Hellmark

if Copyright was done away with right now, the publishers would do all they could to make it more difficult to copy, since they would have nothing to protect their investments otherwise.

I came to clarify my point, but Hellmark has said pretty much what I intended to

[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Well, I was just trying to point out that censorship is copyright, which I say it is, so it is. Just like someone says copyright is ownership so it is. Whether or not any of this means anything is not for anyone to decide.

I used No one is in favor of censorship since it seemed simpler than saying Some people dislike censorship.

Censorship and copyright are not remotely similar.

Copyright allows control of media by the rightful owners (under current law). Copyright allows property owners to profit from their content and control how it is perceived and distributed (if at all).

Censorship is a 3rd party (government) preventing access to media/content based on political, legal, or moral grounds.

The obvious distinction is that copyright places media under the control of the owner; censorship removes control from the owner and/or the potential consumer.

Under current law a consumer has no 'right' to access copyrighted material (the owner decides whether it is available or not), so copyright is not taking anybody's rights away. Content doesn't enter the public domain as soon as it's created.

In short:
Copyright - the creator/owner of media has the right to control how (or if) it is distributed
Censorship - access to content is controlled by the government regardless of the wishes of the content creator or consumer

I am OK with an author refusing to sell me their book, as I believe (and the law agrees with me) that intellectual property belongs to the author, but I am not OK with the government telling me I can't read a book because they disagree with it on political or moral grounds (though I have no issue with censorship of certain grossly illegal content).

Copyright isn't perfect, but it serves a purpose.

[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Just rewording the wiki definitions,

Copyright is a law determining who may copy
Censorship is a law determining what may be copied
Copyright is a subset? of Censorship

Copyright is not exactly determining who may copy, it's determining the owner of a work of art, and that owner has the right to distribute their property as they see fit.

Censorship determines what content is legally permitted to be distributed.

Copying is not the key here, but using the word makes your argument seem logical when it actually isn't. You can't equate an artist's rights to control their property with censorship.

Censorship restricts freedom of expression, copyright doesn't. Copyright merely lets an artist control what happens with their personal acts of expression.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by djgreedo

Censorship restricts freedom of expression, copyright doesn't. Copyright merely lets an artist control what happens with their personal acts of expression.

Except that it does when I wish to express myself by copying another's work.

[DuskyRose]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Except that it does when I wish to express myself by copying another's work.

Copying another's work is not 'expression' unless it is using parts of another's work for research or other such purposes as covered in 'fair use'.

Just sharing other people's creations is not showing any creativity at all, nor expressing who they are.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by DuskyRose

Copying another's work is not 'expression' unless it is using parts of another's work for research or other such purposes as covered in 'fair use'.

Just sharing other people's creations is not showing any creativity at all, nor expressing who they are.

It can be, but that's very very oblique to this discussion.

The easiest example is a mix tape made on a specific theme, where you need the full songs, in a specific order, to get the right emotional impact. Or making a soundtrack to a movie or tv show clips. Another example is a collage, like the mosaic pictures made of photographs. Creating a mix of books would be more difficult, but not impossible; creating a mix of book chapters or short stories would be easy. That's what anthology editors do, and it's very much considered a creative act.

There are other potential examples; some of them are fairly strange.

However, the fact that there are creative uses of entire sets of other people's creations, doesn't mean that the 1st amendment always trumps copyright law. The first amendment has been interpreted to mean the state needs a compelling interest to limit free speech, not that the state is not allowed to restrict free speech.

[elcreative]

There is a slight difference in that anthology editors put their works together with the permission of the copyright owners if still in copyright, they don't just steal them to pass off as their own work...

[rigorist]

Originally Posted by djgreedo

Copyright is not exactly determining who may copy, it's determining the owner of a work of art, and that owner has the right to distribute their property as they see fit.

No.

Copyright has very little to do with determining ownership. Copyright is a system of controlling copying.