Copyright is Out of Sight

[wyndslash]

Originally Posted by Mortis

The OP bailed huh? Probably for the best, seems the thread started off full of... never mind

full of giggles? indeed

[HamsterRage]

Originally Posted by Mortis

The OP bailed huh? Probably for the best, seems the thread started off full of... never mind

I'm not sure that the OP was particularly well expressed, but I think the basic idea has some merit.

As far as I can see copyright is dead. There's a graph floating around the Net now that shows how the music industry sales have plummeted over the past few years. To me, it looks like file sharing is going to reduce that industry, as an industry, down to nothing in about 5 years.

It seems to me that once a sizable proportion of a society starts to ignore a law, then that law no longer reflects the shared values and morality of that society. From what I've seen, copyright has pretty much been rejected by society - certainly at least as far as music is concerned, and I can't see how books are going to be any different.

Looking back, it appears that the only thing that copyright ever stopped was corporate entities poaching other publisher's IP. It never was a factor for individuals because copying has always been expensive and/or resulted in a drop in quality with the copy. As soon as individuals had the ability to cheaply make copies and distribute them without any loss of loss of quality, they started doing it, by the millions. And the copyright laws don't seem to have any influence on their behaviour at all.

So I'll agree with the OP that copyright has always been an illusion. Is that a good thing? I don't know, but I don't see any point in fighting reality. Copyright won't work, because lots and lots of people don't want it.

The real question, as far as I can see, is how we create a system that fosters creators to create new, high quality content in the absence of copyright protection.

[Mortis]

Originally Posted by HamsterRage

It seems to me that once a sizable proportion of a society starts to ignore a law, then that law no longer reflects the shared values and morality of that society.

I'm Canadian and I doubt there are many Canadians that actually follow the speed limits, so by your reasoning Canada might as well repel the speeding laws?

[wyndslash]

Ah well. People here don't follow most Of the laws so I guess those should go too

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by HamsterRage

The real question, as far as I can see, is how we create a system that fosters creators to create new, high quality content in the absence of copyright protection.

I'm going to create a new thread about this soon,

I know there are many groups trying to come up with the answer. To me it seems that we need to allow the reader to read the full text of a work before deciding if the work is worth anything to them.

A more robust version of facebook's like system, where pressing like deducts a portion of monies from an account and also adjusts the liked works ranking somehow.

Pressing like will also have to adjust the readers ranking, readers will be able to like other readers, all reading will be tracked. referrer tracking with monetary compensation might help.

Maybe it gets too complicated who knows.

What do you think the network is going to allow us to do in 50 years?

[HamsterRage]

Originally Posted by Mortis

I'm Canadian and I doubt there are many Canadians that actually follow the speed limits, so by your reasoning Canada might as well repel the speeding laws?

Perhaps. I know you tossed this out as an example of taking my idea to the absurd extreme, but I don't think it's a particularly good example.

I'm Canadian too, and what I see is that the vast majority of people on the highway drive at about 120 kph. That's because everyone knows that there's virtually a zero probability of being pulled over for any speed under that. Above 120 kph and the probability rises.

So I'd say that they way that the speed limits have been enforced, and the way that people expect them to be enforced really does affect the meaning of the law. You could say that it's a de facto change to the law.

The other thing that does change is the minimum fine for speeding, since by the time the police do decide it's worth ticketing you, you're up into the second fine bracket.

Going beyond that, I'd be willing to bet that if you did a poll you'd find that the average Canadian feels that 120 is a safe speed to drive on the highway, and that they'd be happy if the speed limit was increased to 120 and then enforced more strictly. Which to me, at least, would be a strong argument to change the speed limit.

[HamsterRage]

Originally Posted by wyndslash

Ah well. People here don't follow most Of the laws so I guess those should go too

I'd challenge that. My money would be that most people follow most of the laws, and the ones that they do break, en masse and with great frequency, should be reviewed.

I think the fundamental philosophical point here is that laws are supposed to reflect the shared values and morals of their society. How can that be the case if a law is generally ignored by the members of that society?

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

What do you think the network is going to allow us to do in 50 years?

how about exchanging karma for money?

[Mortis]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

To me it seems that we need to allow the reader to read the full text of a work before deciding if the work is worth anything to them.

I am only going to comment on this bit you wrote, can you not see the problem in allowing someone to "Digest" something before deciding if it was worth it to them? If this is your new business model, please be selling Porsches and let me know where I can come get it. I use Porsches as an example, but the author of a best selling book can afford more than 1 I'll bet.

If you created anything, something that you put your heart and soul into, something that you thought was so incredible, something you sent countless hours thinking of just the right way for this thing to develop, to be complete and then you sell it to one person. Who then copies it a couple of million times, selling it, or hell just giving it away. Can you honestly, without pause, tell me that you wouldn't be pissed and want to kill the person you sold / gave it to?

I doubt you can, it's that utopian society thing, its not possibly as people.

Personally I think you're over simplifying things, as I am in my example.

[HamsterRage]

Originally Posted by Mortis

If you created anything, something that you put your heart and soul into, something that you thought was so incredible, something you sent countless hours thinking of just the right way for this thing to develop, to be complete and then you sell it to one person. Who then copies it a couple of million times, selling it, or hell just giving it away. Can you honestly, without pause, tell me that you wouldn't be pissed and want to kill the person you sold / gave it to?

For the past 30 or so years, there have been lots of people who spent countless hours writing software simply to set it free into the world for people to use and enjoy, sometimes asking for people to donate, sometimes not. Chances are that the website the this forum runs on is driven by a web server that nobody paid a penny to use.

My point being that creativity can flourish - and really, really good stuff can come out of it - in an environment where the author doesn't get paid in money. And there are lots of people who live just to see their work get passed around a million times.

OK, so I know that's not the same situation you described. But I'd say that if you were an author today, you'd have to be blind to not realize that anything that you publish is going to available via file sharing a few minutes after you sell the first copy. So there has to be a limit to how pissed off you can be.

Now if you did all that work 5 years ago, and were hoping to fund your retirement for the next 30 years off of ongoing royalties...well then I think you'd have a strong reason for being really angry.

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by HamsterRage

For the past 30 or so years, there have been lots of people who spent countless hours writing software simply to set it free into the world for people to use and enjoy, sometimes asking for people to donate, sometimes not. Chances are that the website the this forum runs on is driven by a web server that nobody paid a penny to use.

this thread has derailed and now is coming full circle again. I think I've already made my point that software is utilitarian work created out of mechanic accretion of many people inputs, not useless art created by selective creative input mainly from a single person's vision.

My point being that creativity can flourish - and really, really good stuff can come out of it - in an environment where the author doesn't get paid in money.

Most open-source developers have other jobs and surely wouldn't be working on something if it wasn't: 1) useful for many people; 2) all the development maintenance fell onto his shoulders alone, rather than on an army of other equally benefited developers... it works because it's not creative work and it's useful to everyone. None of it is true to art.

Go ask a virtuoso pianist who's been training all day long ever since he was 5 to master his art if he's willing to give performances for free to a bunch of whining crackheads. Will they give him shelter or food? How can someone expect to commit to that kind of excellence in a given art if you're supposed to do it for free for everyone's else enjoyment?

The best you can get out of a free deal like that is something bland like Lord Giggleton's own "Bakery Blues" ebook available for 1 buck at Amazon.

[Mortis]

Originally Posted by HamsterRage

For the past 30 or so years, there have been lots of people who spent countless hours writing software simply to set it free into the world for people to use and enjoy, sometimes asking for people to donate, sometimes not. Chances are that the website the this forum runs on is driven by a web server that nobody paid a penny to use.

My point being that creativity can flourish - and really, really good stuff can come out of it - in an environment where the author doesn't get paid in money. And there are lots of people who live just to see their work get passed around a million times.

OK, so I know that's not the same situation you described. But I'd say that if you were an author today, you'd have to be blind to not realize that anything that you publish is going to available via file sharing a few minutes after you sell the first copy. So there has to be a limit to how pissed off you can be.

Now if you did all that work 5 years ago, and were hoping to fund your retirement for the next 30 years off of ongoing royalties...well then I think you'd have a strong reason for being really angry.

I know a bit about freeware, public domain and open source and I agree 100% that it not only can work to bring about creativity but it does work and works very well, but as you pointed out thats not what we are discussing. We're talking copyright.

I don't think there are any authors that really believe they will live off the royalties of a book for 30 years, I'm not a writer so I don't know for sure, but I can't imagine they would be happy about it.

I have a lot of personal knowledge about the music industry and how much a well known artist earns on royalties for 11 albums and if thats what an author is earning then, I hope they have a day job. Copyright is intended to protect the value of intellectual property, not to keep people from making copies of it, that should be handled by peoples personal morality and their understanding that they are stealing something. Just like it they walked into your house and walked out with you TV, copyright is like the deadbolt on your front door, it won't keep a determined thief out, but it will keep the more honest ones out.

I

[HamsterRage]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

I think I've already made my point that software is utilitarian work created out of mechanic accretion of many people inputs, not useless art created by selective creative input mainly from a single person's vision.

Clearly, you're not a programmer. I can think of nothing more creative than writing software. And while there's lots of software that was driven by one person's vision, I don't see any reason why "art" has to be a solo thing anyways. That seems like a bit of a red herring to me.

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

Most open-source developers have other jobs and surely wouldn't be working on something if it wasn't: 1) useful for many people; 2) all the development maintenance fell onto his shoulders alone, rather than on an army of other equally benefited developers... it works because it's not creative work and it's useful to everyone. None of it is true to art.

That's a joke, right? Lots of art is "useful" to many people, even if only to derive enjoyment for a period of time. I'm not sure that art require maintenance, so I'm not sure how that's relevant here. And, of course, software is the most creative work in the universe.

And who's to say that all artists need to be full time artists? Surely some of those freeware programs floating around on the net took just as much time and effort to create as a novel, and they were done in the authors' free time.

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

Go ask a virtuoso pianist who's been training all day long ever since he was 5 to master his art if he's willing to give performances for free to a bunch of whining crackheads. Will they give him shelter or food? How can someone expect to commit to that kind of excellence in a given art if you're supposed to do it for free for everyone's else enjoyment?

Of course, live performances, which are where most musicians make their bread and butter (especially virtuoso pianists), aren't really part of this discussion. Do crackheads listen to virtuoso pianists?

Anyways, the thought that anyone actually practices all day long at the age of 5 because they expect to make a fortune selling CD's a couple of decades later is generally laughable.

All that being said, although I'm no virtuoso, I'd happily plug in an electric guitar and play with a band for free in a bar. Then my friends who actually need the income from doing the same would get pissed off at me for depressing the market for paid live musicians. My point though, is that there are plenty of people like me, who would do it, and would do it well too.

[Enkidu of Abydos]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

At least a pussy cat has never mauled a person to death.

How about scratched to death ?
And what has all this got to do with copyright anyway ?

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

I'd gladly live in a cage in my own filth if rabbits ruled the world.

You're one strange hombre...

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Parrots are the real kings! A lot smarter than dogs or cats. Our parrot totally dominates the whole family, including our retriever. And he taught himself to pick the locks of his cage and pull the doors closed again so that we don't notice. He can talk in 5 different languages, male or female voices, sounds just like a human. All this while being just a 4-year-old baby (they can live to around 40-60).

That's really impressive...

[Enkidu of Abydos]

Originally Posted by Mortis

Ok, where did this thread derail?

Originally Posted by wyndslash

a LOOOONG time ago.

to be fair, it was spell's fault

Tar and feather him I say !
Or just cancel his cookie privileges... No more chocolate-chip cookies for him !