The Logic Of Copyright

[Lemurion]

As a writer, I'm completely opposed to the abolition of copyright.

I do think current terms are too long, and enforcement has reached ridiculous extremes, but that doesn't mean the principle of copyright isn't sound.

When I hear someone talking about "abolishing copyright," what I hear is: "I want to steal your work and make money from it." That doesn't sit well with me. I'm not really concerned with casual pirates, people who use the darknet to download books for personal consumption. I don't like it, but it's part of the cost of doing business. The person who reads one book for free might buy the next.

However, that forbearance evaporates in the face of those who want to take my work and sell it for personal gain without compensating me. I have a big problem with piracy for profit and that's what abolishing copyright means. It doesn't mean "information wants to be free." It doesn't mean "there's no harm in sharing intellectual property." It means "profiting from theft or slavery is fine by me."

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

I do think current terms are too long, and enforcement has reached ridiculous extremes, but that doesn't mean the principle of copyright isn't sound.

You had me right there.
That's my opinion in a nutshell. There's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater when some tweaking can benefit those on both sides of the issue.

[RainingLemur]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

copyright is ice cream.

Neapolitan, I hope. And if someone eats all the chocolate...I will set loose a horde of bark scorpions in their home.

[Leyor]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

It doesn't.

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

We'll try to put aside the fact that I think there's a big distinction between tangible and intangible property. As I won't have time before the weekend to debate that

I'll just quickly list a few negatives for discussion. Keep in mind that, as I wrote before, that my main objective here has been to disprove historically inaccurate statements used to promote a specific agenda . Something I feel I've succeeded at. I don't actually have a black and white position on the topic, but I deplore inaccuracy and wish to debate from a platform, without emotional statements without any solid foundation in facts. I dislike false syllogies and inaccurate analogies.

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.

I think it's a weak rhetorical argument to ascribe inaccurate motives and comparisons. It'd be on the same level as saying that I only think people defending Copyrights want to line their fat purses on the expense of intellectual freedom, and defend outdated market models because they lack the imagination to think of anything else, the discussion is alot more nuanced than that, and there's definitely some things inherent in Copyright that'd be harmful to dismiss.

Here's some of the weaknesses of Copyright. Keep in mind I am not discussing the pro's here, simply retorting to the statement that Copyright has no negative consequences. Also keep in mind that Copyright is administered differently in various countries.

Copyright laws allows too broad definitions of what constitutes intangible properties. An example is T-mobile owning the color magenta and subsequently suying others using said color. Why should you be able to own a color? Or a name. From my, admittedly subjective, point of view, something belongs to all of us.

Copyright laws sometimes directly hurts the creators of content.
A lot of publishers began routinely requiring writers to sign contracts that declared that what they wrote was a "work for hire," so that the authors wouldn't own any part of their own work. Of course the companies didn't actually hire the writers and give them benefits, like real employees. Also the way Copyright h administered, atleast here, allows interest organisations to represent authors and artists, even without the artists consent, in some countries this isn't voluntary. In Denmark an organisation representing artists copyrights, actually started billing artists for giving away their content on their own websites.

Copyright protection directly hurts the consumers/users/fans.
Copyright allows groups such as the RIAA to sue common people insane amounts for trivial infringements. It's responsible for DRM which reduces the user experience significantly.

Copyright directly hurts all of us. It allows companies to obtain ownership of cultural treasures, and let them be traded like a commodity. Why does some Beatles song belong to an immortal corporation that can keep trading it forever. They are a cultural treasure and part of our historical identity, like Mozart or Beethoven. Copyright should never extend beyond an authors lifetime.

Copyright hurts innovation. Copyright is being used as a stopgap to prevent a change to new market models. Instead of trying to find ways to benefit the actual authors of content by taking advantage of how easy it is to share and transfer information, companies are clinging to to old models, cracking down hard on anyone who infringes on it. Easy access and sharing is treated more like a threat than an opportunity. The music industry is reluclanty threading new paths with services like Spotify, services that are meeting heavy resistance from the established industry and interests groups. Stop treating every copy like a loss, it actually could be an opportunity.

Give me a day and I'll come with more examples. Keep in mind here, I am responding to the simple statement that Copyright doesn't have any negative sideeffects. It does. I am however not implying that it can't be changed for the better, or that it doesn't have positive sideeffects too.

I do think current terms are too long, and enforcement has reached ridiculous extremes, but that doesn't mean the principle of copyright isn't sound.

When I hear someone talking about "abolishing copyright," what I hear is: "I want to steal your work and make money from it."

I'm glad that you can see some of the ridiculousness behind our current Copyright laws.

What I don't understand is that you as a creative person, can't see that there must be better alternatives that doesn't hurt you or the people who enjoy your works. Why does discussing this automatically have to turn into ascribing people with sinister motives of theft, are we so caught inside this box that we automatically have to assume such a defensive position?

If 10x more people enjoyed your books, but you only earned 1/10th pr. book. Is that nescessarily a loss?

I am not saying that people who create content shouldn't be allowed to be compensated for their work. I am saying that Copyright as it is right now is harmful, and it's in all our interest if its changed. So we need to be able to start picking apart the things we dislike and pressure to get them changed. It'll benefit not just all your fans but you aswell.

I own several hundred books, most are purchased, others are from the public domain. I feel I get good value when I buy a hardcover book, I can keep with me and lend out to my friends. I however refuse to buy e-books with DRM, and I encourage everyone to do the same. Thats one example of how I feel we can influence the market to change.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Leyor

We'll try to put aside the fact that I think there's a big distinction between tangible and intangible property. As I won't have time before the weekend to debate that

I'll just quickly list a few negatives for discussion. Keep in mind that, as I wrote before, that my main objective here has been to disprove historically inaccurate statements used to promote a specific agenda . Something I feel I've succeeded at. I don't actually have a black and white position on the topic, but I deplore inaccuracy and wish to debate from a platform, without emotional statements without any solid foundation in facts. I dislike false syllogies and inaccurate analogies.



I think it's a weak rhetorical argument to ascribe inaccurate motives and comparisons. It'd be on the same level as saying that I only think people defending Copyrights want to line their fat purses on the expense of intellectual freedom, and defend outdated market models because they lack the imagination to think of anything else, the discussion is alot more nuanced than that, and there's definitely some things inherent in Copyright that'd be harmful to dismiss.

Here's some of the weaknesses of Copyright. Keep in mind I am not discussing the pro's here, simply retorting to the statement that Copyright has no negative consequences. Also keep in mind that Copyright is administered differently in various countries.

Copyright laws allows too broad definitions of what constitutes intangible properties. An example is T-mobile owning the color magenta and subsequently suying others using said color. Why should you be able to own a color? Or a name. From my, admittedly subjective, point of view, something belongs to all of us.

Copyright laws sometimes directly hurts the creators of content.
A lot of publishers began routinely requiring writers to sign contracts that declared that what they wrote was a "work for hire," so that the authors wouldn't own any part of their own work. Of course the companies didn't actually hire the writers and give them benefits, like real employees. Also the way Copyright h administered, atleast here, allows interest organisations to represent authors and artists, even without the artists consent, in some countries this isn't voluntary. In Denmark an organisation representing artists copyrights, actually started billing artists for giving away their content on their own websites.

Copyright protection directly hurts the consumers/users/fans.
Copyright allows groups such as the RIAA to sue common people insane amounts for trivial infringements. It's responsible for DRM which reduces the user experience significantly.

Copyright directly hurts all of us. It allows companies to obtain ownership of cultural treasures, and let them be traded like a commodity. Why does some Beatles song belong to an immortal corporation that can keep trading it forever. They are a cultural treasure and part of our historical identity, like Mozart or Beethoven. Copyright should never extend beyond an authors lifetime.

Copyright hurts innovation. Copyright is being used as a stopgap to prevent a change to new market models. Instead of trying to find ways to benefit the actual authors of content by taking advantage of how easy it is to share and transfer information, companies are clinging to to old models, cracking down hard on anyone who infringes on it. Easy access and sharing is treated more like a threat than an opportunity. The music industry is reluclanty threading new paths with services like Spotify, services that are meeting heavy resistance from the established industry and interests groups. Stop treating every copy like a loss, it actually could be an opportunity.

Give me a day and I'll come with more examples. Keep in mind here, I am responding to the simple statement that Copyright doesn't have any negative sideeffects. It does. I am however not implying that it can't be changed for the better, or that it doesn't have positive sideeffects too.



I'm glad that you can see some of the ridiculousness behind our current Copyright laws.

What I don't understand is that you as a creative person, can't see that there must be better alternatives that doesn't hurt you or the people who enjoy your works. Why does discussing this automatically have to turn into ascribing people with sinister motives of theft, are we so caught inside this box that we automatically have to assume such a defensive position?

If 10x more people enjoyed your books, but you only earned 1/10th pr. book. Is that nescessarily a loss?

I am not saying that people who create content shouldn't be allowed to be compensated for their work. I am saying that Copyright as it is right now is harmful, and it's in all our interest if its changed. So we need to be able to start picking apart the things we dislike and pressure to get them changed. It'll benefit not just all your fans but you aswell.

I own several hundred books, most are purchased, others are from the public domain. I feel I get good value when I buy a hardcover book, I can keep with me and lend out to my friends. I however refuse to buy e-books with DRM, and I encourage everyone to do the same. Thats one example of how I feel we can influence the market to change.

If you're saying that current copyright laws need changing - I'm 100% behind you. I think they need a lot of changes.

However, the basic principle of copyright, that the creator of a work owns the rights to reproduce that work, is something that I feel needs to be maintained and defended. Even work-for-hire (and I've done work-for-hire) is based on that principle - because if I didn't have those initial rights I wouldn't have needed to sign them away in those cases. (And yes, I actually came out ahead on those deals.)

Change is very different from abolition, and while I support one, I can't support the other.

I'm not worried about getting 1/10th the profit from each of 10x the readers - I'd like to think a tenfold increase in readership would generate some increase in profit, but I'll take what I can get. Where I would have an issue would be if my readership increased tenfold, and my profit didn't increase because someone else was selling those extra copies and taking all the profit. That's the kind of thing copyright law exists to stop - and that's why I don't support abolition.

We need a system to regulate who can make a profit from any given person's work - and that's what copyright law does. Is it the best implementation? No. But it is something we need.

Reform, not abolition.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

However, the basic principle of copyright, that the creator of a work owns the rights to reproduce that work, is something that I feel needs to be maintained and defended.

Why is this? Is ownership some natural property of human thought? Where did the idea of ownership come from and why do we continue to believe that one thing can hold dominion over another?

As far as length of copyright goes, I read that most think that any alteration of the length of copyright's terms will only affect the small minority of copyrighted works that tend to be highly profitable within the first few years of their being released upon the public.

Is it wise to base law on the perceived benefits to a small minority of the populace?

A length of 5-10 years, applied retroactively to all copyrighted works, that would be great of course, just think of all the stuff we could read.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Why is this? Is ownership some natural property of human thought?

If you watch small children play you will notice that the idea of ownership comes natural to them, while sharing is something that has to be taught. Children only share when they get something in return (some other stuff, attention, praise, love, etc.

Protecting what is yours is one of the most basic survival instincts.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

If you watch small children play you will notice that the idea of ownership comes natural to them, while sharing is something that has to be taught. Children only share when they get something in return (some other stuff, attention, praise, love, etc.

Protecting what is yours is one of the most basic survival instincts.

It would interesting to know if children exposed to an environment where ownership did not exist still came predisposed into the world with ideas of ownership.

What I mean is, abstract conceptions such as ownership or sharing most likely need to be imprinted onto our consciousness through repetition and do not come preloaded onto the genome.

We are at the core viral replications, the high level manifestation of reckless copying.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by leebase

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

People did manage to make money from books they wrote before copyright was created.

I don't advocate the removal of copyright now--the economic & social settings are different--but I don't think copyright is the only way for authors to make money.

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.

Are you under the impression that this didn't happen? That free digital copies of Avatar aren't widely available, haven't been widely available since a very short time after it came out?

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

If Avatar hadn't been made, I don't think the human race would've collapsed in anguish. In fact, I don't think anyone would've noticed.

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.

No, what I desire to read is a particular type of fanfic, but since my favorite authors don't write fast enough, I occasionally go looking for ebooks from other sources.

I'd like some of those to be authors I remember fondly from childhood, but since their books tend to be twice the price I'm willing to pay, and DRM-infected as well, I mostly stick to relative unknowns when I'm between fanfics.

[Leyor]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

If you're saying that current copyright laws need changing - I'm 100% behind you. I think they need a lot of changes.

However, the basic principle of copyright, that the creator of a work owns the rights to reproduce that work, is something that I feel needs to be maintained and defended. Even work-for-hire (and I've done work-for-hire) is based on that principle - because if I didn't have those initial rights I wouldn't have needed to sign them away in those cases. (And yes, I actually came out ahead on those deals.)

I don't have a clearly defined view wheter I'd prefer abolishing or changing Copyright.

What I really want is to get through peoples perception of what copyright is and make them realize that some of what they perceive as virtues are actually the opposite, and that clinging to Copyright the way the industry is doing right now, is actually blocking the progress of change that'll benefit us all. Right now I feel that the industry is going the opposite way, taking away the ownership of consumers to a specific product. You don't own an e-book, you rent the right to read it, and you can't lend it to your friend. Those are the parts of ownership consumers have that are being taken away, and thats just for consumers.

If Copyright was changed enough to benefit both authors and consumers, and supported those values I feel are important in creating content (which I've listed, such as innovation, accessibility, adding value rather than decreasing it etc.). I'd probably be happy enough.

If Copyright was abolished, I'd fight for those value aswell, as replacing them with a vacuum would diminish that. If you make something, you own it. However someone lending it or making a copy doesn't nescessarily take away from your ownership. It all depends on the context. I believe than an artist should be able to protect the artistic integrity of his work, and that writers deserves an incentment to create good works, all those would be gone.

I personally believe that the best future actually exists in derivatives. Just as it did in Germany in those old days. Competing with copies by making a more attractive product, or an ecosystem that increases derivative income, actually promoting profiliation of the work. Instead of selling 100 books, and earning 1 dollars each. You give away 1000 books, and your fans pay you 200 dollars for fine leatherbound editions they want in their library, or 100 on an author tour. (These arent nescessarily the best examples, I am just trying to illustrate a principle). It's already happening in other industries.

Why is this? Is ownership some natural property of human thought? Where did the idea of ownership come from and why do we continue to believe that one thing can hold dominion over another?

We tend to discuss Copyright mostly in terms of price and ownership. But one other thing I think is important is artistic integrity. The right for you to have your work represented in the way you originally envisioned it. While others can copy it, try to improve it. Use your formula to create an even better vaccine. And for the good of all of us, that really should be possible.

Having your work represented as someone elses is, or your work modified and represented as yours. Goes against my ethics.

[Leyor]

+1 Elfwreck

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Leyor

I personally believe that the best future actually exists in derivatives. Just as it did in Germany in those old days. Competing with copies by making a more attractive product, or an ecosystem that increases derivative income, actually promoting profiliation of the work. Instead of selling 100 books, and earning 1 dollars each. You give away 1000 books, and your fans pay you 200 dollars for fine leatherbound editions they want in their library, or 100 on an author tour. (These arent nescessarily the best examples, I am just trying to illustrate a principle). It's already happening in other industries.

We tend to discuss Copyright mostly in terms of price and ownership. But one other thing I think is important is artistic integrity. The right for you to have your work represented in the way you originally envisioned it. While others can copy it, try to improve it. Use your formula to create an even better vaccine. And for the good of all of us, that really should be possible

Sometimes the derivatives, i.e. fanfics are better then the originals.

Creating a leatherbound edition for your fans, that sounds like a donation to me and such a system of compensation would not need copyright to function. The fans would know that the particular leather bound edition they are buying is endorsed by the author.

It might occur that a fanboy will create an eelskin bound multivolume set of the author's entire work and distribute it to anyone at cost of production.

Which would you prefer? And Why?

[DMB]

Of course, if you go back to the 18th century, many books were issued by subscription, so you signed up to buy a book before it came out and the publisher knew just how many copies to print. I can't see that that was a better model than what we have now.

I do agree with those who say that copyright goes on for too long.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

It would interesting to know if children exposed to an environment where ownership did not exist still came predisposed into the world with ideas of ownership.

What I mean is, abstract conceptions such as ownership or sharing most likely need to be imprinted onto our consciousness through repetition and do not come preloaded onto the genome.

We are at the core viral replications, the high level manifestation of reckless copying.

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.

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by Leyor

Copyright protection directly hurts the consumers/users/fans.
Copyright allows groups such as the RIAA to sue common people insane amounts for trivial infringements. It's responsible for DRM which reduces the user experience significantly.

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.

I'm not a fan of DRM, and I do think that the current implementation of copyright is broken, but I'd like to see it changed rather than abolished.