The Logic Of Copyright

[Leyor]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Nothing could be further from the truth. Read the CC license.

I did,

Creative commons zero, one of the licenses adopted by CERN, DIGG and others has exactly that purpose. Let me tweak my statement to become more accurate then.

Creative commons allows for different types of licenses, giving away different degrees of ownership to the level the creator wishes.

From the most restrictive, Creative commons BY-NC-ND: You may share it as much as you want, but thats it, and remember to credit me, to the Creative commons zero.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Leyor

Creative commons allows for different types of licenses, giving away different degrees of ownership to the level the creator wishes.

That's a little better, but I still contend that the Creative Commons license (in any of its various incarnations) has nothing to do with the "giving away of ownership." But that may be a case where our opinions are indeed only separated by semantics. I just don't see those semantic differences as trivial.

[astrodad]

Originally Posted by elcreative

I just used ignore a few days ago and it's amazing how much more I'm enjoying MR again...

Thanks for the reminder!!!

[Hellmark]

CC gives away right of usage, not of ownership. Think of it like a lease that you pay nothing for, and has no end date. You can use the item, do what ever you want with the item (within the terms of the agreement), but technically the lease company still owns it and is letting you use it.

In the case of CC0, you may as well have put it in the public domain and given it away, but the owner no longer has any rights to the item. It could be argued that it still it is no longer owned by the creator, but it varies based on jurisdiction. Not all laws allow you to completely give us ownership.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by jbcohen

Aurora is close to sensor according Mirriam and Webster's dictionary to sensor is the examination of ideas to supress expression of ideas that are considered objectionable. Sensor is the supression of objectionable expression of ideas and copyright is, again according to Mirriam and Webster: the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute the matter and form of something (as a literary, musical, or artistic work). So sensor and copyright are close. A copyright does not supress the expression of an idea rather supresses the expression of that idea by others so its rather close.

Close enough in my opinion. Encourage free reading.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by Leyor

Actually that statement is, if not false, then atleast very much open for dispute.

Everything is up for dispute

Originally Posted by Leyor

Historically copyright has had the exact opposite effect. It arguably resulted in Verdi reducing his effort at composition, while Beethoven who did not benefit from any copyright laws produced a big amount of high quality compositions.

A fantastic example. Would you prefer to return to the time when the arts existed solely as patronage from royalty? Myself, I prefer to be able to use my own money to entice folks into producing works that _I_ like. There may be no prince or princess that likes sci-fi, but millions of us nerds together, using our individually meager means, combine to create a market that can support folks in the production of "art" that pleases us.

You'll have to elaborate on Verdi as I'm ignorant of how copyright discouraged his efforts.

Originally Posted by Leyor

The introduction of Copyright in the UK at 1710 resulted in the UK having a reduced book market with few high priced books (Which I know you like ), while Germany at the same age had a thriving book market, mass producing and benefiting authors, publishers and readers alike.

Do you have sources that I may refer to? I fail to see how ME mass producing a work created by YOU, with no need to compensate YOU, could result in YOU being encouraged to continue producing works at great labor for yourself but of benefit to anyone with a printing press. And, of course, in OUR digital age....you'd work for a long time to create a book...then instantly I copy the file, post it on the internet for instant and free dissemination across the world.

Originally Posted by Leyor

While old historical facts only tells us, well what difference there was before Copyright, it's easy to see today aswell that Copyright in both the music and book industry has allowed recording companies and publishing companies to maintain old business models at the detriment at consumers. It's served as a stopgab hindering progress we as consumers could benefit from.

I do not take the position that our current copyright situation is nirvanna. Only that intellectual property as a concept is VITAL. It is a virtue.

Originally Posted by Leyor

I firmly believe that just as publishing companies theoretically can charge whatever they want for a product, and lobby for comparing information with physical products letting ownership far transcend the creators lifetime. We as consumers can express opinions to the contrary, try to achieve copyright laws more beneficial to us and prices that'll actually allow everyone full access to these books. As long as there's a demand for books, no matter what the pricepoint, smart business people will always find a way to profit from it and some authors will always want to create.

Without copyright, there is no way to profit from authoring books. Consider the millions of dollars spent on creating the movie Avatar. Without copyright, I could instantly create a copy, distribute it across the internet for free, instantaneously. Sure, folks that run theaters could still make some money as some folks are going to pay to see it on the big screen. But the theater need not pay James Cameron one penny.

You think such a movie would be made in that environment?

We see in Smashwords that kind of cr@p with the occasional jewel you get when amateurs write books with little hope of financial return. They can't afford editors. They can't afford any of the process the clearly distinguishes the results of a professional book making industry. And yet, what books are people upset about? They are upset about the price of these professionally created books because THOSE are the books they desire to read. They have all kinds of free and cheap books to choose from but they'd RATHER have the end product of the commercial book industry. Without copyright, there could be no professional book industry.

Lee

[leebase]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

We can ignore any future comments about quality, there is garbage on both ends. But we are moving towards something interesting.

The fact that there is a seemingly endless supply of free and very cheap ebooks -- AND STILL -- folks complain about the high price of ebooks is PROOF that "we won't be ignoring any future comments about quality".

Why would I be bothered about the high price of clothes at Nordstroms if the clothes at WalMart were just as well made, just as fashionable? I'd just buy my clothes at WalMart.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Moving beyond copyright is something that has to be done on an individual basis...

For once you and I agree on something. I totally support open source for software and creative commons for writing. If folks want to freely give away their labor for the good of society, what could be wrong with that?As a choice.

Copyright and patents are essential concepts for those who would choose to be paid for their work.

Lee

[Leyor]

Originally Posted by leebase

A fantastic example. Would you prefer to return to the time when the arts existed solely as patronage from royalty? Myself, I prefer to be able to use my own money to entice folks into producing works that _I_ like. There may be no prince or princess that likes sci-fi, but millions of us nerds together, using our individually meager means, combine to create a market that can support folks in the production of "art" that pleases us.

You'll have to elaborate on Verdi as I'm ignorant of how copyright discouraged his efforts.

Do you have sources that I may refer to?

Actually Beethoven is one of the first composers who were able to support himself WITHOUT patronage He did indeed profit from patronage until 1794 but after that he earned his living from a sum of incomes, from teaching piano, giving concert, from subscribers and from fee of his published compositions.
He dealt with imitation by making his works so complex that few could play them as well as him.

With the introduction of Copyright, Guiseppe Verdi exploited them to the fullest. Deploying staff of rights managers and attorneys as a result Verdi became very rich and his compositional efforts diminished, from 14 operas in the 1840s to seven in the 1850s, two in the 1860s, and one each in the succeeding three decades. Here's one of multiple sources: http://www.serci.org/docs_5_2/doc5_2_2.pdf.

For many hundred years, content creators made a living without requiring either patronage or Copyright.

Originally Posted by leebase

I do not take the position that our current copyright situation is nirvanna. Only that intellectual property as a concept is VITAL. It is a virtue.

Without copyright, there is no way to profit from authoring books. Consider the millions of dollars spent on creating the movie Avatar. Without copyright, I could instantly create a copy, distribute it across the internet for free, instantaneously. Sure, folks that run theaters could still make some money as some folks are going to pay to see it on the big screen. But the theater need not pay James Cameron one penny.

Without copyright, there could be no professional book industry.

It's definitely not a virtue, quite the opposite. Without Copyright a professional book industry existed for hundreds of years. We don't have to support an ecosystem because it's the only one we know. There's so many ways moviemakers and authors can make a profit, that doesn't involve controlling the rights to their works way past their own life time.

The more you get your work profiliated and the more who read your books or listen to your music, even if it's for free. The more you can profit from various derivatives. Concerts, book tours, beautiful leather bound books etc. The more your work spreads, the more you could earn. The less successfull authors would earn less, but they already are under the current model.

I am not saying that this is the solution or discussing the economics of it. I am just saying that:

1. Copyright is not the virtous system that you portray it to be.
2. Copyright is not the only market model possible.
3. Copyright has alot of BAD side affects.

I kind of feel we're suffering from Stockholm's syndrome, defending a system that clearly has alot of disadvantages to us, rather than press for changes that'll prove advantageous. I do realize that we live in symbiotic relationship with the book industry, and as such some of us identify with them to the exclusion of our own interests. But I find it unconscionable to defend a system that deprives the work of cultural treasures like the Beatles songs and award ownership of them to undying corporate entities. A system that restrict access of information to the masses. Remember this link? This is what would have belonged to all of us this year if we didnt keep awarding companies longer and longer copyrights:

http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/pre1976

Let not lack of imagination prevent us from pushing towards a system that benefits us and the authors more.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by leebase

Without copyright, there is no way to profit from authoring books.

Consider the millions of dollars spent on creating the movie Avatar. Without copyright, I could instantly create a copy, distribute it across the internet for free, instantaneously. Sure, folks that run theaters could still make some money as some folks are going to pay to see it on the big screen. But the theater need not pay James Cameron one penny.

You think such a movie would be made in that environment?

Once we abandon internet 1.0 and create internet 2.0 with no anonymity and total tracking control, copyright will essentially be irrelevant. I am slightly concerned about access to books at this point, but I have faith that all digital content will be free as the air under net 2.0, as long as you can contribute in some manner to net 2.0 functionality. I must admit to barely imagining this.

Yes the theater wouldn't have to pay the creators of Avatar but that would stop production of Avatar 2, theaters are in the business of selling popcorn, for this they need movies for people to watch as they are eating popcorn, we can only eat popcorn while watching Avatar 1 so many times. It would be in the best interests of the theaters to pay some monies to Avatar creators for more Avatar like movies.

Some would pay more, some would pay less, some people make more money, some people make less money. Everything is a spectrum, but the prices have been fixed.

[Leyor]

Most scary vision of the future ever.

[DMB]

Originally Posted by Leyor

It's definitely not a virtue, quite the opposite. Without Copyright a professional book industry existed for hundreds of years.

The "book industry" you are talking about was tiny in comparison with what we have now. Not a lot of books were produced and the the readership was limited because so was literacy.

I don't see how you can make valid comparisons. You might as well go back to the era before printing. Copyright was not necessary when the only method for copying was long and laborious writing by hand.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by DMB

The "book industry" you are talking about was tiny in comparison with what we have now. Not a lot of books were produced and the the readership was limited because so was literacy.

I don't see how you can make valid comparisons. You might as well go back to the era before printing. Copyright was not necessary when the only method for copying was long and laborious writing by hand.

Mayhaps literacy was limited due to a small number of books?

Are you saying that if I copy a book by hand I should not be beholden to the laws of copyright? And if I use a mechanical device to augment my handwriting capabilities?

[Leyor]

Originally Posted by DMB

The "book industry" you are talking about was tiny in comparison with what we have now. Not a lot of books were produced and the the readership was limited because so was literacy.

I don't see how you can make valid comparisons. You might as well go back to the era before printing. Copyright was not necessary when the only method for copying was long and laborious writing by hand.

That's a very fair point, however I do feel that you're taking it somewhat out of context.

My premises is that A) There's no historical justification for Copyright. B) Copyright has some harmful side effects. C) There's other ways of obtaining compensations for making creative works beyond Copyright.

There's definitely areas where I feel that it'd be hard to find an alternative to a limited Copyright, the pharmaceutical one for example where drugs are protected for a few years, ensuring the company a product while still giving consumers access to generic brands relatively quickly after.

But in terms of writing, the arguments for Copyright (You can profiliate the work quickly, you can obtain a digital copy as easy as pie etc.) are somewhat different. I feel the arguments here actually rather advocates a rethinking of the business model, rather than a protectivistic approach. Instead of clamping down harder, having Copyrights that you can hold on to for lifetimes, trying to brand creative thoughts as a physical commodity, I really think publishers need to rethink their strategy.

Some already are, Baen for example, and they deserve credit.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by DMB

The "book industry" you are talking about was tiny in comparison with what we have now. Not a lot of books were produced and the the readership was limited because so was literacy.

I don't see how you can make valid comparisons. You might as well go back to the era before printing. Copyright was not necessary when the only method for copying was long and laborious writing by hand.

No doubt. His example of Beethoven is terrific. Without copyright, one can only make money through direct action. Teaching, performing. One can't author or compose and make any money when anyone can copy for free.

We already have the choice to work for free. Anybody who wants to compose a symphony and then just let anybody else copy it, use it, adapt it for free, can do so. Anybody who wants to write a book and give it away, allow others to copy it, adapt it, make a movie from it for free -- can do so.

What folks who wish to abolish copyright want to do is to TAKE AWAY from those who wish to create for money. For those who aren't interested in working for free....who aren't interested in allowing others to modify, adapt, or just plain copy their work without compensation. These folks should have their works stolen from them and given away.

And that's no virtue in my book.

Lee

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Leyor

B) Copyright has some harmful side effects.

It doesn't.

Keep in mind that I'm coming from a position that makes no distinction between tangible and intangible property.