If you had a vote for copyright?

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

No-one's suggesting that the result of the poll means that (at present) the great majority of MobileRead members actually think that having no copyright at all would be the optimum arrangement.

You apparently missed post #230. It was suggested that, (on the basis of this poll) not just the majority of MR members, but even the majority of the population supports doing away with copyright completely. And a number of other comments go in that direction.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Quexos

It is interesting to note that according to this poll, most people are against the concept of copyrights. Funny if one considers the members of this website are supposed to be "politically correct" in their majority

Originally Posted by HansTWN

You apparently missed post #230. It was suggested that, (on the basis of this poll) not just the majority of MR members, but even the majority of the population supports doing away with copyright completely. And a number of other comments go in that direction.

You're right - I missed that one. Quexos seems to have completely misunderstood the poll. I was wrong to say "no-one".

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Consumers don't have the right to act like thieves and violate an author's copyright when a law created and enforced by the government doesn't agree with them. They are expected to respect and accept copyright, and to treat authors using copyright with the respect and honesty they deserve (since they also have the free alternative to walk away and not read the author's works). And they are expected to challenge their government over unacceptable laws... not to beat up on artists because the laws are unsatisfying.

The idea that it is possible to steal words is fundamentally wrong. Words belong to everyone. I cannot accept any law that limits in any way my access to information.

Compensation to the creator can easily be solved by an end to the anonymous internet and the institution of access fees. Of course those who can not afford the access fees will have to be subsidized by those who can, perhaps the access fee will be based upon a percentage of your income, like a tax... But that is a few years away at least, probably a decade or more.

Copyright is done, we know this.

Let us speak of the meaninglessness of attribution.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Compensation to the creator can easily be solved by an end to the anonymous internet and the institution of access fees...

An end to an anonymous internet sounds like a cure worse than the disease, and would at minimum have a chilling effect on free speech online. And the more I think about that glib suggestion, I'm not exactly sure how it would solve anything. Can you clarify?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

An end to an anonymous internet sounds like a cure worse than the disease, and would at minimum have a chilling effect on free speech online.

"Free speech online" is already covered by the usual laws of libel, defamation, etc. If someone libels you online on a board such as MR, the person libelled can already get a court order to reveal your identity.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

This is why the poll is no good: The fact is that, while creators did create with no copyright and patent protection, patent and copyright protection has resulted in (or allowed) the greatest period of creativity and invention since its inception. So clearly, some form of copyright is the best answer for society, creators and consumers alike.

With an increase in population comes an increase in creators. With an increase in life expectancy comes more time for them to create. With an increase in literacy comes an increase in the number of people that can create. With laws that allow people to have time to themselves and not work all the time comes the opportunity to create. With art classes in schools comes the opportunity for children to figure out that they are able to create. With the internet comes the opportunity to share the creations with the world. With every technological advancement comes the opportunity to make new kinds of art.

Creativity doesn't come from copyright.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Somebody get Giggles a dictionary so he can die happy.

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

With an increase in population comes an increase in creators. With an increase in life expectancy comes more time for them to create. With an increase in literacy comes an increase in the number of people that can create. With laws that allow people to have time to themselves and not work all the time comes the opportunity to create. With art classes in schools comes the opportunity for children to figure out that they are able to create. With the internet comes the opportunity to share the creations with the world. With every technological advancement comes the opportunity to make new kinds of art.

Creativity doesn't come from copyright.

With the increase in the cost of living comes less opportunity to create.

Copyright provides a financial incentive for creativity.

I continue to be surprised by those who honestly believe that "removing anonymity from the internet" will somehow conjure up Big Brother in our homes, eradicate free speech, and spell the end of the world as we know it. The things you're concerned about have been here, and addressed, for years. Decades. Centuries.

Time to stop being afraid, accept that some things are a necessary evil (since unregulated people are even more evil than that), and move on.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

With the increase in the cost of living comes less opportunity to create.

Also less opportunity to consume.

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Copyright provides a financial incentive for creativity.

It also provides the financial incentive to suppress creativity in others.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Somebody get Giggles a dictionary so he can die happy.

I continue to be surprised by those who honestly believe that "removing anonymity from the internet" will somehow conjure up Big Brother in our homes, eradicate free speech, and spell the end of the world as we know it. The things you're concerned about have been here, and addressed, for years. Decades. Centuries.

Time to stop being afraid, accept that some things are a necessary evil (since unregulated people are even more evil than that), and move on.

An end of an anonymous internet is fine if you think the internet is only useful for sharing anonymous cat pictures or copyrighted material illicitly. Unfortunately, it's also used by people expressing unpopular opinions and political dissident groups, so you know, people that have a real reason to fear government reprisal. But hey, it's not like there were any recent examples of dissident groups, say in the Middle East, using the anonymity of Twitter to organize protest movements.

What you have with a loss of anonymity is indirect censorship, which is harmful in and of itself but also a killer of creativity. Your line "...unregulated people are even more evil than that" is all the more offensive because you say use it in such an offhand way, it suggests to me a real lack of respect for your common man and an offensive discounting of freedom generally.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Your line "...unregulated people are even more evil than that" is all the more offensive because you say use it in such an offhand way, it suggests to me a real lack of respect for your common man and an offensive discounting of freedom generally.

What it is, is an understanding of the nature of Men, and a plain truth commentary on why we need laws in the first place. Or do you really believe this world would be a better place, and people better to each other, without laws and enforcement?

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

What it is, is an understanding of the nature of Men, and a plain truth commentary on why we need laws in the first place. Or do you really believe this world would be a better place, and people better to each other, without laws and enforcement?

Your constant reliance on histrionics and strawmen arguments don't make for an interesting or useful discussion. At the risk of justifying a silly question with an answer, no, I don't think we'd be better off with no laws or enforcement (I'm not sure what I said that implied that). However, I do think laws are inherently restrictive and that restriction is in itself a harm; a law is justified only where it cures or prevents more harm than it creates. A law should be more scalpel than cudgel.

Trying to somehow do away with internet anonymity would cause limited benefits and manifold harms. I just don't see how it can be justified.

HarryT already pointed out that libel and defamation laws already exist, and those have built-in balances and protections. I'm not sure what the need is for anything more.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Trying to somehow do away with internet anonymity would cause limited benefits and manifold harms. I just don't see how it can be justified.

HarryT already pointed out that libel and defamation laws already exist, and those have built-in balances and protections. I'm not sure what the need is for anything more.

I disagree. The benefits would be great, as so much of the internet is taken up today with bogus communications, illegal activities and scams. As with the original posting, you're assuming an "all or nothing" stance that is unnecessary. Better security AND anonymity where necessary are possible on the internet.

The fact that we have entertained so many unending and unresolved discussions about the inequities and failures of copyright, and a singular lack of viable replacements for the basic concept, is evidence in itself of the need for better balances and protections.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

I disagree. The benefits would be great, as so much of the internet is taken up today with bogus communications, illegal activities and scams. As with the original posting, you're assuming an "all or nothing" stance that is unnecessary. Better security AND anonymity where necessary are possible on the internet.

I have assumed no such stance (another tedious strawman), and I've already conceded that libel laws and defamation laws are a useful balance to anonymity. Most countries already have laws that limit spam messaging (the scams you refer to would be caught in a lot of cases by these), illegal activity is already illegal and I'm not sure what "bogus communications" means.

Maybe you can help me in understanding what you see as the additional benefits?

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Trying to somehow do away with internet anonymity would cause limited benefits and manifold harms. I just don't see how it can be justified.

Absolutely true. Karma inbound...

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

"No copyright" isn't the same as "limited copyright" (nor "perpetual copyright"). So that's no logic to choosing either extreme over the other.

But while "none" means "none," "perpetual copyright" can be limited in scope, so it actually covers all versions of copyright, strict to lax, right up until "none."

Therefore, choosing "perpetual" is more logical than choosing "none".

And anyone who chooses "none" is therefore illogical, QED.

You are absolutely correct that there is ambiguity in the "Copyright Forever" end of the poll. (Few of these polls would qualify as rigorous.)

But that ambiguity seems to me to weigh the question in favor of the CF position, because it allows the person who answers the question to fill "CF" with whatever meaning he or she cares to read into it.

In other words, it seems more likely than not that anyone who favors any degree of copyright would choose the CF position over the No Copyright position.

If I'm right about this, the overwhelming anti-copyright response should be very troubling to those who believe that the current state of copyright law is within the range of the reasonable.

My own interpretation of the CF position turns on the "forever" part. I don't think that any part of copyright should endure forever.

Nor, apparently, did the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, who were really vigorous advocates of property rights in other respects. I think that this is because they regarded copyright as an exception to a general rule that there are no ownership rights in what we now call "intellectual property".

It is not "fair use" that is an exception to copyright; it is copyright that is an exception to fair use.