Copyright is Out of Sight

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by wyndslash

I love this thread. It's amusing.

Me too. Oh, Enkidu, Namekuseijin, Kennyc, Mr Ploppy, wyndslash, Giggleton, and the now long departed Grimm, yall are such clowns. If only I didn't have to be so deathly serious all the time.

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

yes. You seem passionate enough but lacking either the persistence or the coke sniffing, probably the former. Which is why you spend your literary verve here on long and pointless anti-establishment posts rather than on writing a convincing and amusing enough fictional view of such utopic world that would inspire future leaders towards your vision

I gave up on the publishing industry when they failed to realized that every word I type is divinely inspired. Their loss. They'll see. One day I'm gonna own this town. My names gonna be in big bright lights and tweeted all over the world.

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Assuming they can find what they like (or even find out what they like) amidst all the sh*t.

this fails in face of the number of sh*t published by the industry already.

really, trying to pick up good reads from the internet is not much different from trying to pick up good reads from a book store...

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by Enkidu of Abydos

It would be greater good if he had stolen the car to kill people, not kittens. People are even more in excess on this planet then kittens. It's like an overgrown backyard, someone has to do some pruning.

we should turn all humans into zombies. Getting to this thread is a good start.

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

we should turn all humans into zombies. Getting to this thread is a good start.

This thread does not transform humans into zombies: parasites, pricks, and trolls, yes, but zombies no.

[spellbanisher]

I am a prick. But if you prick a prick, will he not bleed? (the answer is no)

[Enkidu of Abydos]

Don't know actually (not my kind of thing), but ask around down at the Blue Oyster club. I guess there should be no bleeding unless you're really forcefull ?

P.S.
In case of bleeding, use butter.

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

This thread does not transform humans into zombies: parasites, pricks, and trolls, yes, but zombies no.

Give credit where credit is due, some people were parasites, pricks and trolls long before this thread. Long before Internet even.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

>klik-klack!<

>creee...<

Say, what are you all still doing in here? John Locke told me he was gonna come in here and lead you all back out into the light! Or did he decide you were better of just asphyxiating in here?

Well, whatever. Just remember, if you don't leave, you'll miss doughnuts tomorrow... your choice!

>cree--slam!<

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Say, what are you all still doing in here? John Locke told me he was gonna come in here and lead you all back out into the light! <

Not the light! Anything but the light!

[spellbanisher]

It turns out this thread actually turns people into vampires.

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Just remember, if you don't leave, you'll miss doughnuts tomorrow... your choice!

I'm scared of the light, but can you still bring me some donuts. I don't think it's fair that I should miss out on donuts just because I am a vampire.

[guyanonymous]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

No, there is the same number. The difference now is that they don't just give up at the first rejection letter. There's no knowing how many good writers were lost to society forever because of traditional publishers and their profit driven agenda.

While it may be impossible to determine an accurate number....the population has grown exponentially over the past 100 years. (http://newsgarden.org/chatters/homep...llieblog/?p=26 has one chart that shows the common guess). As such, even if we decided that 10% of the population wants to write and could produce something here and now, and apply that to the historical population at any time, the numbers suggest that the current number of writers is significantly higher than it has been in the past. When we factor in changes in literacy rates, barriers to recording you thoughts (paper/writing instrument availability and cost), it is a fair assumption that more may be getting produced these days that in the past. In the US alone, now, over 275000 books are published yearly these days, and the UK is up there as well at over 200000 books yearly. While it's possible that that many books were published in the past, it's not likely.

On a numbers basis alone, it is reasonable to estimate that currently more books are produced on a yearly basis that have been in the past (if we average each 25 year period).

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

Kali Yuga tries to debunk Giggleton's arguments by calling them “Friday afternoon technobabble.” He says that a new technical ability does not create the moral framework to make the action permissible. He uses the ability to go around killing people because he has a gun as an example an activity that is made possible by a technology but is still impermissible. His second point is that the idea that the world will be a better place and that corporate interests will evaporate is ridiculous. He finishes his rebuttal by saying that copyright is a social contract enforced by laws.

As far as his first point, he is correct but only in theory. Possibility does not equal permissibility. But he inadequately connects theory to copyright and sharing. To connect this to his final point, copyright is a social contract enforced by laws because it is generally seen that copyright does society the most good. But no law serves an absolute principle. Every law constrains liberty, but the damage it does to overall liberty is offset by the greater protections its provides. If a law no longer does good than harm, it must be changed or abolished. The question now is whether we should gimp the technology that makes production of information infinitely easy so that creators can profit the way they have always profited. The question isn't even a matter of compensation. It's a question of whether the old method of compensation, the old business model, is the best business model. New technology has always agitated old industries. The moving image was a threat to the stage. The radio and the album was a threat to the live performance. Cable and vcr was a threat to movies. Each time old industries tried to use the law to crush new technologies, and had they succeeded society would be much worse.

In summation, Yuga fails to make an argument. Instead, Yuga assumes that his position is a first principle, when in fact it must be proved. Yuga begs the question.

Yuga's post is number 5. I will continue the review at a later time to see if Carld was correct in his assertion that anti-copyright proponents have yet to make “a cogent, thoughtful and considerate.” We will let the world decide (or the three people who will read this post.) For now I am tired, and though I may still make smartass posts in this thread and other threads, I will continue my review at a later time. Now, I am off to the fortress of pretense.

Now to continue my review.

In response to Yuga's post, Giggleton incorrectly notes that copyright has been around for 500 years. He then asserts that Copyright in its current form hinders the dissemination of knowledge. He sees collaboration as the key to ensure the quality of fiction and provides a link to an article that doesn't prove its point; its just an author proposing a little writers club. The idea of the article is that four or five writers get together and contribute whatever they can to the group, stories to be sold, editing, or whatever skills they can provide. They would market each others works and publish their works under the same brand name. After this he asserts that the real criminals in the world are “those who wish to lock the word behind barriers...” Finally, he says any word anywhere can instill hope or a better way of being in the reader, whether the writer agrees or not, and that therefore “There is nothing to be done except to let the word free.”

As far his contention that copyright is directly hindering the dissemination of knowledge, there is not much proof for that. Almost anything a person could possibly want to learn they could on the internet or from a library legally. The works that are being denied to the public are mostly fiction and other commercial works, and he argues that copyright that prevent the dissemination of these works hurts the public good. This assertion is pretty weak too; if anything, there is a glut, not a scarcity, of entertainment media. If anything people consume too much, not too little, creative content. These are just my assertions, but without an adequate argument on his part it is just assertion vs assertion. I believe we would be better off spending less time watching tv and movies and reading throwaway fiction and more time thinking and reading about current and political events. For most people in the world the problem is that there is too much apathy and too many distractions from the things that really matter. But these are just my assertions.

As far as his contention that collaboration is superior to the current publishing regime, I can't say I disagree. I think coops and guilds and writers associations have the potential to be more effective than publishers. But like many other people arguing over copyright, giggleton assumes that the publishing regime and the copyright regime are the same. There is no reason why there can't be writers coops in the current copyright regime, just as there is no reason why publishers could not exist without a copyright regime. And the current copyright regime does not prevent writers from making their works freely available.

[spellbanisher]

Outlander78 (entry 7)agrees with someone, probably piper, that copyrights are too long. He adds that copyright doesn't just protect entertainment media, but also things like word processors, tax software, applied science, more efficient cars. He says hobbyists will make stuff in their garages, “but who is going to put them together to make and sell iphones?”

Well, to put bluntly, outlander78 is conflating copyright with patents. Patents only last fifteen years, which probably would be within the “not-too-long” time frame for outlander78. What copyright covers is expression, not technique.

Dulin's Books calls Giggleton's arguments gobbledygook (and for some odd reason has quotations around the word) and Andrew H. says Giggleton's arguments are uninformed drivel.

Sircastor(entry 10) says that though he/she believes in the necessity of copyright, “long copyrights are a horrible tragedy.” He contends that excessively long copyrights are the primary culprit in the “inflated culture of piracy.” He contends that if creative works fell into the public domain during an artists lifetime, artists would have more incentive to create. Furthermore, other artists would be able to take advantage of newer works that fall into the public domain and extend their value. This would also encourage more collaboration. The consequences of extended copyright, he argues, is a society of producers who are afraid of losing their golden egg and that they “live in a climate of scarcity where they will never make money again.”

His contention that a long public domain discourages productivity would only be valid if artists were motivated by a purely economic desire to do as little work for as much gain. This simply isn't true. The most successful artists are often the most prolific. Enormous wealth has not and did not discourage writers like Stephen King, James Patterson, or Ernest Hemingway from writing throughout their lives. It is pretty standard these days for popular authors to publish every six months to a year. In fact, success often encourages artists to create more. Writers write because it is their passion or obsession; they support copyright because they believe that they have the right to say what can and can't be done with their works. Additionally, about 98% of works have no commercial value after 50 years, and the most of the rest have little value. Most works have no value after a few years. So in this assertion he would be right. Shorter copyrights might actually benefit artists more, because future artists would be able to revive their works. This would not benefit them monetarily, but at least it would preserve them some sort of legacy and maybe even revive their name recognition enough to help fuel sales of art still copyrighted.

Though I agree with him that shorter copyrights would potentially allow artists to add value and revive works that no longer have commercial value I don't see how this would encourage collaboration. Perhaps a writer whose work has fallen into the public domain might grudgingly work with another writer wanting to use his work, if only to maintain some semblance of control of his creation. I also think that the argument that longer copyrights is bad for creativity is greatly overstated. Copyright only covers a specific and tangible expression of an idea, not the idea itself. The fact that “The Lord of the Rings” is copyrighted has not prevented thousands of fantasy writers from almost blatantly copying J.R.R Tolkiens masterpiece. I could steal the plot of the novel, rename all the characters and places, rewrite the sentences, and voila, I have avoided copyright infringement. Copyright does not prevent borrowing or infringement, just blatant stealing. A lot of people use Disney as an example of somebody who was able to take advantage of works that had just passed into the public domain to create and revive old works and overall enrich culture. This is true. But the stories Disney retold, from Snow White and the Seven Dwarves to Beauty and the Beast, are almost nothing like the originals. Disney could have just as easily renamed these movies to avoid copyright infringement.

His point about the induced culture of scarcity is also a valid point. Publishers want as many works under copyright so they don't have to compete against free. Still, every era has its tastes. Publishers aren't threatened by works written 200 years ago, because no matter how good they were, they do not conform with modern taste. The question is how long does it take for tastes to change dramatically? But this makes the false assumption that most readers will read anything that fits their tastes. Readers read for many reasons. They read the latest work because it is popular or trendy. They read classics because they bestow cultural prestige. The average reader only wants the latest (and remember, if you are visiting this site you are not the average reader). An academic or “hardcore” reader will always be willing to pay for value, whether it is to a writer they greatly admire or for an edition of a work that has added value (like a classic novel with essays). We spend on what we care about, and dedicated readers will always be willing to spend on their passion. Most other readers will consume whatever is on the New York times bestsellers or what they can get at Amazon or Wal Mart because it is convenient and has a brand. Most readers will not go to the internet to find some fifty year old work they will enjoy. The culture of scarcity is unnecessary.

Where I believe shorter copyrights are a detriment is in the realm of commentary and and scholarship. For any classic novel you can find numerous scholarly editions, but for a work in copyright you will find only editions approved by the copyright holders. Much more value can be added to a work in the public domain than a work in copyright, which is part of the point that sircastor originally makes. Longer copyrights can also undermine a writers oeuvre. Take Sinclair Lewis, for example. His works “Babbit” and “Main Street” are well-known and well-read, whereas his novel “Elmer Gantry” has become his forgotten third masterpiece. Why is that? Can't be sure, but “Babbit” and “Main Street” are in the Public domain, at least in the U.S., whereas “Elmer Gantry” is not.

[Giggleton]

Thanks for the digested version of this thread spellbanisher. It really helps to get things organized. I still stand by my "assertions" regarding what you consider entertainment. To me they are not assertions, but I have no other proof then simply myself saying,

"I have a deeper and more knowledgeable understanding of the world after watching a few Harry Potter Films".

But that is evidence enough I believe for allowing anyone who wishes to copy Harry Potter and share it with everyone else.

At the moment I'm seeing a global network where everyone can connect and where everyone is identified, everything you upload and download is marked and noted. In this network copyright would not be needed, do you agree? Attribution to the source would be automatic and payments could be made to the originator of a work accordingly.

This type of network is not too far off, certainly closer than food replicators.

There would of course be a darknet, but if the lightnet wasn't censored too much, I don't think I would mind using it.