Copyright is Out of Sight

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

The only argument you could make is that having no copyright at all would be nuking creativity and destroying artists' livelihoods.

Japan seems to be doing okay these days.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by wyndslash

@giggle: for me, as long as there are people who restrict other books from being on stock ("banned" books), then what does abolishing copyright do? gah, sorry if that didn't come out well...in a hurry here.

Copyright is in effect, banning books from being on stock. If you consider yourself as a library, and I hope that you do, then you should be able to create a site and place any and all books that you would like onto that site, for any and all users to download and read.

To me it seems like a grey area, where you actually are allowed to do what was mentioned above, but you are not allowed to make a profit from the practice. That's fine with me, We should just be more open about it and really let the knowledge flow.

Re: A few posts ago

I'm not sure what the holocaust has to do with copyright either, and the dropping of the abomb is way out there, but all things are related, maybe we will find the links one day and stop these types of things from occuring in the future, abolishment of copyright is a step in this direction.

[spellbanisher]

Wow, talk about a complete misinterpretation of what I wrote.

I was writing in response to Giggleton's appeal to emotion:

"What I do not believe, what is impossible for me to ever believe is that humanity is so base as to disregard its artists so completely, to neglect to compensate them for their extremely worthwhile contributions to the species."

What I was referring to was his naive belief that humanity is not capable of such baseness as failing to compensate its artists. Humanity is capable of great baseness, so relying on the goodness of others is not a smart bet.

Anyways, there are lots of things we should care about but don't. We should care about the 40 million children living in poverty in the richest country in history, but we don't. We have 10 plus billion to spend on cosmetic surgeries every year, yet millions of children don't have adequate access to healthcare.

We should care about the horrid conditions of our inner city schools, about the fact that the gap between white literacy and black literacy is greater than it has ever been in our nations history, including the days of slavery. We should care our inner city education is such a failure that the average black man in our country reads at an eighth grade level. But we don't. Not really. Not enough to do anything about it. Fixing this problem might mean that poor billionaires and millionaires might have to pay an extra three percent on their taxes. We wouldn't want to impinge on their liberty. Let's elect a savior or a scapegoat, then blame him when he can't fix all our problems.

We should care about the excess of a billion people in the world who are starving, who can't afford adequate food. How much would it cost to end world hunger? About 30 billion dollars a year. That's about half Bill Gates net worth. That's less than 3 percent of what we gave to Wall Street in the Bailout. That's less than one-third the amount of money we spend fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq every year. That's one-twentieth of the Pentagon's budget. It's about one-fortieth of what all nations in the world spend on their militaries.

We should care about the fact that the metals used in our computers, televisions, tablets, and readers are harvested by slaves in the Congo and enrich genocidal regimes.

We should care that despite their claims, the world bank and other global economic institutions actually destroy third world countries. It's the same pattern again and again. A country asks for economic aid, speculators rush in, extract as much wealth out of the country as possible, a bubble is created, the speculators panic, the bubble bursts, and the nation is left in worse condition than it was before. That nation is then forced to adopt "austerity measures," i.e., cutting wasting social services like medicare and public education. They still got to pay their loans back too, so instead of those nations tax payer dollars going to pay for services such as infrastructure development they go to paying debts to the world bank and other global economic institutions.

We should care that advertisers in this country have deliberately destroyed the self-esteem of our women, have created in them an indelible sense of inadequacy and insecurity, just so that they can sell them an endless supply of cosmetic products. We should care that because of these advertising companies most women can't look in the mirror and not feel disgust or anguish, that this sense of inadequacy taunts them every hour of every day, that society accepts this as normal and that there is no escape.

We should care that despite the fact that it was Wall Street that crashed the world economy it's teachers and firefighters and policemen and immigrants that are getting blamed, that are being bombarded and disdained for their greed and power, despite the fact that most of them barely make enough to live off of. Meanwhile, Wall Street is back to the same practices that crashed the economy, making record profits, while the rest of the economy languishes.

We should care about the hundreds of millions of people who die of treatable diseases every year. We should care that our political leaders have propped up dozens of oppressive pro-american dictatorships all around the world. We should care that we are causing irreparable damage to the environment.

We should care that our government subsidizes agriculture and then dumps food in third world countries so that those countries can't afford to grow their own food. We should care that the clothes we donate to charities like Goodwill and Salvation Army are often bundled and sold to African merchants who sell them back home in Africa. Why is this important? Because in the 60's and 70's many African nations were industrializing, building up wealth and creating jobs through their textile industries. These second hand American clothes, priceless to many people in third world countries because they are from America, drove homegrown textile companies out of business, completing undoing the economic progress made by these African nations.

We should care that our nation is becoming deindustrialized through outsourcing, that global corporations are pitting workers across the globe against each other to drive down wages, that our future may be a rat race to the bottom. Or maybe I should say free fall? That this global competition, instead of improving the lives of people everywhere, will become a contest of “how low can you go.”

We should care that the average executives salary has grown exponentially while the wages of the average family has stagnated and declined over the last thirty years. We should care that the gains our ancestors fought for over the last century are being unraveled by greedy magnates searching for any way to increase their bonuses. You should care that unless you are the boss you are seen as an expense and not an asset, that you will be used and then discarded.

We should care that our food is made of artificial ingredients like high fructose corn syrup, that tax payer dollars actually fund big agro factories that grow this crap, and that this crap is destroying the health of all Americans. Forget Health Care Reform. We need agricultural and food reform.

We should care that while we spend tens of billions on entertainment, give trillions away to Wall Street, while our infrastructure is crumbling, getting a grade of D from the Society of Engineers.

Sure, we care about all these things, but not enough to do anything about it. Yet you expect people to care enough to pay artists out of the goodness of their hearts?

If anything, we have too much access, not too little. Maybe we would know about these things, maybe we would even care enough to do something about these things, if we didn't waste every free hour watching television and movies, reading magazines and junk novels, listening to pop music, playing video games, and pissing away time on internet surfing. If anything our unparalleled access to information has been a distraction from things that matter, not a gateway to a better future.

If anything, our unparalleled access to information has made us esteem it too little. As Tom Paine says in the opening paragraph of “The American Crisis,” “What we Obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value.” For us that dearness is our labor, our sacrifice of time and energy. Money represents that sacrifice, and when we pay for our information it should be a reminder that nothing is free, that everything has cost, that the work you consume required hundreds if not thousands of hours of labor and sacrifice on the part of the artist. Having to pay for access is not an obstruction of liberty; it is an acknowledgment of the reality of cost, it is an impetus to work and create value so we can have what we want, it is an affirmation of the dignity of the artist and his work, that it is worth something, that his sacrifices were dear, that his sacrifices are worth your sacrifices at least. You think we should pay when we can. So is the artist and his work only worth our leftovers?

Again, our unparalleled access to information has made us esteem it too little. We should cherish what we have. We should read, and reread, and ponder, and contemplate, and debate, and think critically. Instead we consume and we devour, as if a movie or a book is a bag of potato chips. One after another, there is so much out there that we wish to gorge ourselves, but it is all empty calories for the soul. We don't value our information. Instead of it making us smarter it makes us dumber. We chow it down and shit it out.

If anything, if we didn't spend every free hour of our lives looking to obliviate our consciousness with the next distraction, with the next dazzling spectacle, if we weren't drowning in content, we'd be able to focus on things that matter. We'd be able to focus on being good and transformative citizens instead of spending our lives as inconsequential consumers. Maybe then we wouldn't need to search for meaning or substance or the next analgesic. Maybe then we'd be able to actually make a difference.

You point out that many scientists have been inspired by shows such as Star Trek. Fine. So entertainment has done some good. No one denies that. But what of all the bad it is responsible for that greatly outweighs the good? What if kids didn't spend all their time on video games and television? Maybe we'd have more and better scientists and engineers. What if adults didn't spend all their time looking for the next titillation? Maybe we'd have an educated and alert citizenry, one that would hold the culprits for most of our worlds ails responsible, one that would value science and fund it so that our scientists wouldn't have to spend countless hours begging for more money so they can finish their research projects.

We have more access to information than we can ever digest. The internet has provided us with the means to become fully educated and informed. But have we? In the internet age we have become more misinformed, more insular, and more tribal. The internet allows us to escape from reality, to only have to deal with people we agree with, to live in fantasy land.

You say that entertainment should be free because any creation can alter your worldview, that any creation can be beneficial. Fine. If that is true, then Bon Apetite. There is more free stuff on the web than you can read in a thousand lifetimes. The latest novel at fanfiction.net is just as good as J.K. Rowling according to your perspective. All those stories at scribd.com are just as valuable as any pulitzer prize winner. Why don't you start with them. You say that the copyright regime is unnecessary for the production of high culture, yet you want the labor produced by the copyright regime. There are millions of people who agree with you whose work you can read. But you want the stuff that you can't have for free. Who's being greedy now?

Now, this doesn't mean that I don't think the current copyright regime is broken, because it is. I'll explain in another post. But there is no lack of access to information. Those billions of souls you say are hungry for knowledge are really just hungry for food.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

What I was referring to was his naive belief that humanity is not capable of such baseness as failing to compensate its artists. Humanity is capable of great baseness, so relying on the goodness of others is not a smart bet.

If you can't rely on that...

Let's just move this discussion onto the nature of property then, and the idea of ownership.

You and I have no rights to anything. Take what you need, give what you can. Today I need access to every book every written, Tomorrow you might need a loaf of bread, yesterday my local supermarket threw out copious amounts of food...

Chaos,Order,Enlightenment

-The Giggler

[Nada y Nadie]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

If anything, we have too much access, not too little. Maybe we would know about these things, maybe we would even care enough to do something about these things, if we didn't waste every free hour watching television and movies, reading magazines and junk novels, listening to pop music, playing video games, and pissing away time on internet surfing. If anything our unparalleled access to information has been a distraction from things that matter, not a gateway to a better future.

This sense of entitlement is a part of our culture. We have zoos because we all think we're entitled to see an African elephant or a giant panda whenever we want, and the animals aren't entitled to freedom. A lot of the problems you mention in third world countries are because we feel entitled to whatever resources those countries hold. You can blame the corporations, but if we weren't buying what those corporations are selling, that would end their incentive to destroy so many people's lives.

[wyndslash]

Originally Posted by Nada y Nadie

This sense of entitlement is a part of our culture. We have zoos because we all think we're entitled to see an African elephant or a giant panda whenever we want, and the animals aren't entitled to freedom. A lot of the problems you mention in third world countries are because we feel entitled to whatever resources those countries hold. You can blame the corporations, but if we weren't buying what those corporations are selling, that would end their incentive to destroy so many people's lives.

i believe in karma, though

[HansTWN]

Actually -- as you can see in China, India, and South East Asia -- trade is the best way to lift people out of poverty. Investment and jobs do a lot more to help the poor than handouts. So consumption is a very effective form of foreign aid. No, it is not just a case of big corporations exploiting cheap labor. The workers in these countries have seen their incomes and standards of living skyrocket over the last 10-20 years and most people see their countries, and themselves, as being on the right track. Then look at those countries that received the largest humanitarian aid -- they are stuck at the same level for decades, or things are getting worse.

The biggest problem the really poor countries of the third world are having are bad government, lack of education and stability. These are internal problems, which won't be solved just by the West throwing money at it. Most of that is being sucked up by the ruling elites, anyway. And look at places like the Zimbabwe, Congo, and Somalia. What do you do there, do you really think a dollar a day per child would help?

[wyndslash]

deleted. never mind. don't want to air my emotional distress publicly and start a fight

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Actually -- as you can see in China, India, and South East Asia -- trade is the best way to lift people out of poverty. Investment and jobs do a lot more to help the poor than handouts. Look at those countries that received the largest humanitarian aid -- they are stuck at the same level for decades, or things are getting worse.

The biggest problem the really poor countries of the third world are having are bad government, lack of education and stability. These are internal problems, which won't be solved just by the West throwing money at it. Most of that is being sucked up by the ruling elites, anyway. And look at places like the Congo and Somalia. What do you do there?

Good points, but the nations you point out have been historically powerful and are resource rich. They also haven't been devastated in the way that other countries have been. If anything, the Maoist Revolution, which was horrible, was necessary, because it kicked out the countries that had divided China into territories or spheres of control. If anything, China is just returning to levels of prosperity it had experienced before western invasion.

And the countries that you claim are the way they are because of a "lack of education or stability" are that way because of things that western countries have done, whether it is providing corrupt dictatorships with weapons or building extractive industries(industries designed to take resources out of a country) instead of productive or manufacturing industries. I have already explained how world economic organizations create bubbles in third world countries so they can extract as much wealth as possible. In the Philippines the U.S. government propped up a small group of about 60 powerful families to rule the philippines. These families still essentially rule the philippines, and are primarily responsible for the vast inequalities and persistent poverty in the philippines. your correct that aid doesn't work, but that is usually because it is either to pro-American dictatorships or has specific strings attached that prevent the recipient countries from doing anything with it. It also doesn't help that the U.S. floods the global market with subsidized foods. For most countries, the first way they can build wealth is to sell food, but they can't compete with subsidized foods. I'll elaborate on these things further in a later post, but I have something I need to do right now.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I'm not sure what the holocaust has to do with copyright either, and the dropping of the abomb is way out there, but all things are related, maybe we will find the links one day and stop these types of things from occuring in the future, abolishment of copyright is a step in this direction.

If you abolish of copyright (and if you distribute copyrighted material on the net right now) you are doing to writers what the Nazis did to the Jews. You are declaring them non persons (people whose work is not worth getting paid for and whose things can be taken away at will), you are telling the "Arbeit macht frei". You are making them your slaves who work for you for free. You disrespect the rights of others for your personal benefit. How that should take humanity in the right direction to stop other bad things from happening is beyond me.

Yes, the technology is there to copy freely. The technology is also there to make anybody work for you for free -- it is called a gun. Should we condone its use just because it exists? Should we even encourage the use of technology to trample on people's rights, as you suggest? Or should we try to educate people to be fair to everybody, even if his or her work can easily be reproduced in digital form? One can argue about the length of the terms for copyright, the conditions -- but no copyright? It makes no sense at all.

[pietrocrazy]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

If you abolish of copyright (and if you distribute copyrighted material on the net right now) you are doing to writers what the Nazis did to the Jews. You are declaring them non persons, you take away their property, you are telling the "Arbeit macht frei". You are making them your slaves who work for you for free. You disrespect the rights of others for your personal benefit. How that should take humanity in the right direction to stop other bad things from happening is beyond me.

A very classic example of Godwin's Law right here.

Thread finished, everybody pack up and go home. Once a discussion reaches this point there's no way to redeem it.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

Good points, but the nations you point out have been historically powerful and are resource rich. They also haven't been devastated in the way that other countries have been. If anything, the Maoist Revolution, which was horrible, was necessary, because it kicked out the countries that had divided China into territories or spheres of control. If anything, China is just returning to levels of prosperity it had experienced before western invasion.

And the countries that you claim are the way they are because of a "lack of education or stability" are that way because of things that western countries have done, whether it is providing corrupt dictatorships with weapons or building extractive industries(industries designed to take resources out of a country) instead of productive or manufacturing industries. I have already explained how world economic organizations create bubbles in third world countries so they can extract as much wealth as possible. In the Philippines the U.S. government propped up a small group of about 60 powerful families to rule the philippines. These families still essentially rule the philippines, and are primarily responsible for the vast inequalities and persistent poverty in the philippines. your correct that aid doesn't work, but that is usually because it is either to pro-American dictatorships or has specific strings attached that prevent the recipient countries from doing anything with it. It also doesn't help that the U.S. floods the global market with subsidized foods. For most countries, the first way they can build wealth is to sell food, but they can't compete with subsidized foods. I'll elaborate on these things further in a later post, but I have something I need to do right now.

You make some valid points. Yes, western colonialism has a lot to do with the predicament the African countries are in. But I was talking about remedies at this point. And the US installed (or supported existing) dictatorships in South Korea and Taiwan, but both those countries have had very successful transitions to democracy.

And no, not just powerful countries have risen through foreign investment. The last time China was a rich and powerful country was in the Ming dynasty. Though they were a lot better off before the opium wars than after. But the state of Chinas economy after the cultural revolution was a desperate as any today -- but it had a stable society.

And Vietnam, Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia (if we also include the ones that rose up 40-50 years ago) have always been China's punching bags. They were never strong countries, until foreign trade got going.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by pietrocrazy

A very classic example of Godwin's Law right here.

Thread finished, everybody pack up and go home. Once a discussion reaches this point there's no way to redeem it.

The Holocaust was raised by others about 5 pages ago along with the abomb. Sorry, but I can't just let that stand. So we have been in limbo ever since.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Yes, the technology is there to copy freely. The technology is also there to make anybody work for you for free -- it is called a gun. Should we condone its use just because it exists? Should we even encourage the use of technology to trample on people's rights, as you suggest?

Or should we try to educate people to be fair to everybody, even if his or her work can easily be reproduced in digital form? One can argue about the length of the terms for copyright, the conditions -- but no copyright? It makes no sense at all.

Would you agree that the abolishment of copyright might help in the education that you speak of? Did your education, your learning how to be fair to everyone, did this involve the use of copyrighted materials??

How are those with no access supposed to be educated? Each one teach one? That works, unless the teachings are rotten at the core.

Each one teach one how to learn.

On the surface it does appear that living conditions in certain countries have improved dramatically, but at what cost? We have not solved the energy crisis yet, Nothing can rise without the fall of another.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Would you agree that the abolishment of copyright might help in the education that you speak of? Did your education, your learning how to be fair to everyone, did this involve the use of copyrighted materials??

How are those with no access supposed to be educated? Each one teach one? That works, unless the teachings are rotten at the core.

Each one teach one how to learn.

On the surface it does appear that living conditions in certain countries have improved dramatically, but at what cost? We have not solved the energy crisis yet, Nothing can rise without the fall of another.

You have a point as to educational materials in these poor nations. But how does that affect copyright in western nations -- that appeared to be your main point throughout this thread? Besides, providing educational aid materials should be part of general foreign aid -- with the copyright holders to be paid out of such funds (although at greatly reduced prices). You cannot expect copyright owners to be the only ones to pay the burden of helping poor countries' education. And what good would no copyright on English language books do for the people in poor countries anyway, the vast majority of those poor don't speak English. Furthermore, the teaching materials would have to be printed anyway, in such countries only the rich have access to the internet and devices to read.

As far as general reading is concerned, there is enough material out of copyright (and that is of higher quality than most of the new books) for people to read. Why must people always have the latest bestsellers?