Arguments For And Against DRM

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by disconnected

But why the need for balance at all if a public domain of works wasn’t the ultimate objective? Why not perpetual copyright?

Invert the question: if the ultimate objective was to put works in the PD, why a period of copyright AT ALL?

I'll ask it again: folks, if the real objective was to create works for the PD, rather than for commercial enjoyment by the populace, why pay the artists a royalty fee/ownership fee, etc., at ALL? Why not establish an Amazon-like pool, from which all artists are paid flat fees (like word-rate piecework) and move the titles directly to the PD?

For those of you who think that DRM is evil, and that the objective was SOLELY to serve the public with art--and not to ensure that authors, et al, were paid--please answer THAT. Explicate the WHY. The Roman emperors certainly commissioned Public Art; Public Art for marketplaces, etc., is still commissioned today. It's not as though the establishers thereof wouldn't have known of it.

Even as far back as the Cathach, ("to each cow its calf," or words to that effect), the OWNERSHIP of the creation was the driving principle--not the "good of the people." Doesn't the Talmud talk of this?

So...I'd like to hear the factual arguments for the other side. If the good of the reader is the driving force behind copyright, other than, "after 30-50-75 whatever years, it falls into the PD," what is that thinking?

Arguably, if the "good of the people" is the driving force, then the discussions we're having here can be equally attributed to all types of public works. That would include anything...Parks, Highway Department, Sanitation...all of those things are needed for the public good, right? And everybody who works in those areas get paid, right, and get to keep their money? For their labors? We don't consider the "good of the people" as some overweening right to compel you to give up your labors, do we?

Honestly, it's quite peculiar to me that authors, et al, exist in some rights ghetto. Like a substandard, second-class group of people, who--just because others want to be ENTERTAINED by their work--have to give up the proceeds that they can make from their books, etc., because somebody, somewhere in time, said it was for "the public good."

So are clean toilets at rest stops--but I don't expect the workers who keep them that way to work for free, or have some substandard set of rights that say that they have to sacrifice some portion of their earnings. Or to deliberately hang the proceeds of their cashed checks outside of their pockets on the way home from the bank, and HOPE that somebody doesn't rob them...which is the equivalent of saying that you'll "force" an author/publisher to put his books out there and hope that nobody takes them without paying.

I wonder how many of you would be willing to engage in that experiment: put your paycheck in your pocket, half-hanging out. Walk all the way home. See if you can depend on the "kindness of strangers" not to dip their hands into your pockets, or to pick your money up if it falls out, and hand it back to you.

Because essentially, if you think all DRM should be eliminated, that's what you want to force publishers to do; rely 100%, completely, on "the kindness of strangers," to be HONEST PEOPLE. OR, for the publishers to simply say, "oh, hell, we're going to get ripped-off 30% of the time, anyway, so we'll just jack up our prices that 30% to compensate." The latter is the "pirates won't buy your book anyway" argument consequence; the former is simply naivete.

I've dealt with the public. And Strangers. You know what? They're just not that damned HONEST. So go ahead; try to force publishers to do away with DRM. You'll end up hurting yourselves, if you ARE honest, because you'll end up paying for the theft ratios. You think books are high-priced now? Oish.

Everybody wants to have it all ways--cheap ebooks, way cheaper than pbooks ("just because," because OBVIOUSLY, reading a book in pixels is just not as FUN as reading it on paper....), PLUS no DRM, PLUS copyright periods should be shortened ("because it's just not FAIR!!!"), etc. There's no Book-Santa, kids...publishing is a business, and if you'd simply look at it in that light, and understand that is what it's FOR, this would be a simpler and less absurdly convoluted conversation.

Hitch

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Invert the question: if the ultimate objective was to put works in the PD, why a period of copyright AT ALL?

Because if there was no incentive for these PD works to be created, where would they come from?

I had no idea there was any argument about this point.

In the US, at least, the Constitution says one of the powers of Congress is:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

That is the foundation for US copyright law.

What's the purpose?
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"

How do we do it?
"by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

I thought this was readily apparent from everything I've ever read*, and that the only debate was over details, like how "limited" should the time be, etc.
But, hey apparently people can disagree about anything:
https://www.lib.umn.edu/copyright/purpose#econ

ApK

* Disclosure: I've never read the arguments of Disney's lobbyists.

[eschwartz]

More or less how I understood it.

Mind you, I do not see where in that (or other explanations I have read) it says anything about "progress of science and the arts" equating to the need for a public domain. There is nothing stopping progress from just creating more stuff for us to buy.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

More or less how I understood it.

Mind you, I do not see where in that (or other explanations I have read) it says anything about "progress of science and the arts" equating to the need for a public domain. There is nothing stopping progress from just creating more stuff for us to buy.

There's been quite a lot of discussion on the matter since the Constitution.
That link I included goes into it.

The idea of the PD, in my way of thinking, is implicit in what happens AFTER the "limited" time that all copyright laws I'm familiar with give, otherwise, as someone said, why limit the time at all?

In any case, the fact of the "how" does not change the "why" anymore than the fact of the "why" means we can ignore the "how."

So I think Hitch and Sgt. Stubby are both wrong.

ApK

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by ApK

There's been quite a lot of discussion on the matter since the Constitution.
That link I included goes into it.

The idea of the PD, in my way of thinking, is implicit in what happens AFTER the "limited" time that all copyright laws I'm familiar with give, otherwise, as someone said, why limit the time at all?

In any case, the fact of the "how" does not change the "why" anymore than the fact of the "why" means we can ignore the "how."

So I think Hitch and Sgt. Stubby are both wrong.

ApK

Strictly speaking, copyright doesn't create the public domain. The public domain is the default: before copyright, everything was public domain. Rather than create the public domain, copyright merely suspends work entering the public domain for a limited time. There is no other reasonable explanation for the limited time of copyright except for the work to enter the public domain. A patent isn't eternal, and isn't meant to be and the same clause allows both patent and copyright. Both allow a limited time, government granted monopoly, and at the end of the period, the monopoly ends.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by ApK

There's been quite a lot of discussion on the matter since the Constitution.
That link I included goes into it.

The idea of the PD, in my way of thinking, is implicit in what happens AFTER the "limited" time that all copyright laws I'm familiar with give, otherwise, as someone said, why limit the time at all?

In any case, the fact of the "how" does not change the "why" anymore than the fact of the "why" means we can ignore the "how."

So I think Hitch and Sgt. Stubby are both wrong.

ApK

Actually, you made my argument for me, by answering my question, which was directed at the folks making the OTHER argument: that the purpose of "copyright law" is to enrich the PD...rather than secure the rights of authors. You simply misunderstood my debating style; we're saying the same thing.

Hitch

[ApK]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Strictly speaking, copyright doesn't create the public domain. The public domain is the default: before copyright, everything was public domain. Rather than create the public domain, copyright merely suspends work entering the public domain for a limited time. There is no other reasonable explanation for the limited time of copyright except for the work to enter the public domain. A patent isn't eternal, and isn't meant to be and the same clause allows both patent and copyright. Both allow a limited time, government granted monopoly, and at the end of the period, the monopoly ends.

Correct. I read eschwartz's question to mean "How does copyright law suggest that the works should eventually go into the public domain?" (As opposed to, say, moving from copyright to some other form of economic protection, or just going from one limited copyright period to another, eternally.)

My answer is that it's implied in the "limited time."

ETA: Although, copyright law probably IS responsible for creating 'public domain' as a retronym. There was probably no need to have a term for it until then!
ApK

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Actually, you made my argument for me, by answering my question, which was directed at the folks making the OTHER argument: that the purpose of "copyright law" is to enrich the PD...rather than secure the rights of authors. You simply misunderstood my debating style; we're saying the same thing.

Hitch

Ah. Good. I like it when that happens.

The agreeing part, not the misunderstanding part, that is.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by ApK

Ah. Good. I like it when that happens.

The agreeing part, not the misunderstanding part, that is.

Indeed.

Hitch

[carpetmojo]

Same old same old .... hoewever .......
This is my creed regarding e-reading - I think it's simple, and I apologise if it's boring, and many may feel it's unnecessary, but here it is......

1) Author copyright is not a problem - the need/reason for it is so obvious I can't believe anyone in this day and age is against it.
You want books ? Then pay the author for his/her work - just like your car mechanic/plumber/taxi driver - and don't be a cheapskate. You get paid for your work (if you're fortunate enough to have a job.) let them get theirs.

2) The length/duration of it is open to debate, but it seems sensible for it to be for the life of author, or close to it - but on the other hand, how can a writer know when he's going to shuffle off, so a bit tricky for him/her to select a duration !
Think of it like a patent on an invention.

3) However, I am against the enforced DRM operated by publishers like Amazon etc.... which is purely designed to make readers have to buy their make of reading device, and is simply a means of getting two lots of cash.
However, this a difficult thing to do successfully, and more power to those dedicated to correcting this silly attempt to lock down intelectual property in a manner they cannot do with a physical book.
The Apprentice shows the way ....

There's no need for convoluted arguments one way or the other as far as I'm concerned, and I sometimes can't believe the number of times it keeps popping up.

And I promise never to post on it again.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by ApK

Correct. I read eschwartz's question to mean "How does copyright law suggest that the works should eventually go into the public domain?" (As opposed to, say, moving from copyright to some other form of economic protection, or just going from one limited copyright period to another, eternally.)

My answer is that it's implied in the "limited time."

ETA: Although, copyright law probably IS responsible for creating 'public domain' as a retronym. There was probably no need to have a term for it until then!
ApK

Actually, I got that much on my own.

But with all this odd discussion about "intent", I do not see how the "progression of art" inherently requires a public domain. I think the intent behind a PD is different from the intent behind copyright; obviously copyright has to take into account other concerns, hence the final law.

But as far as the original intent goes, in order to promulgate the spread of art, no PD is needed.
PD (the preservation of) is a carrot given to consumers; we call this "compromise".

All I'm saying is, copyright was NOT the result of someone saying "how can I make sure content creators can get money", but neither was it "how can I ensure the public domain grows". It was "how can I ensure people create more things".

And there is your (generic) "higher purpose".
People spend way too much time reading into it...

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Actually, I got that much on my own.

But with all this odd discussion about "intent", I do not see how the "progression of art" inherently requires a public domain. I think the intent behind a PD is different from the intent behind copyright; obviously copyright has to take into account other concerns, hence the final law.

Of course it doesn't, just as the "progression of science" doesn't require that patents fall into the PD. Science marches on regardless, and in spite of, patents falling into the PD, in fact.

But as far as the original intent goes, in order to promulgate the spread of art, no PD is needed.
PD (the preservation of) is a carrot given to consumers; we call this "compromise".

Yes...so all those consumers can go out, download books from PG, and then put them up, as-is, on Amazon, to sell. For money. Filthy Lucre. What was it--over 2,500 copies of Pride and Prejudice, as the all-time record? Oh, wait, that's not the intent of the PD, right? Gosh, I almost forgot. Surely, THAT is the intent of the PD.

All I'm saying is, copyright was NOT the result of someone saying "how can I make sure content creators can get money", but neither was it "how can I ensure the public domain grows". It was "how can I ensure people create more things".

Yes. And the obvious answer was: people, like all creatures, are motivated by self-interest. If not for themselves, for their gene pool. Maybe there are great artists, of whatever kind, out there, that are driven to create just for the sake of it, and would sculpt/carve/write/paint/whatever, no matter what, but somehow, the promise of gelt seems to motivate them. And if no further proof is needed, simply look to Amazon. You think those MILLIONS of self-pubbed books are up there just to say "I dun it. I wrote me a book?" No. they're there to SELL. (Just as were all the PD books that were, uh...borrowed...from the PD, for the purposes of making dough.) Thus also the ever-burgeoning market in porn. Lotsa consumers, it seems..and now, many purveyors as well. A purer example of the market meeting the need doesn't exist.

And there is your (generic) "higher purpose".
People spend way too much time reading into it...

It is ever so when someone is trying to Gumby an argument to fit a preconceived idea.

ETA: Posted by @carpetmojo:

3) However, I am against the enforced DRM operated by publishers like Amazon etc.... which is purely designed to make readers have to buy their make of reading device, and is simply a means of getting two lots of cash.

You think that this is about devices, rather than human honesty? Having been on the receiving end of "human honesty," I don't blame ANY publisher, big, little or in-between, for using DRM. And trust me: it's more about the publishers than the purveyors. As you've obviously forgotten, you can CHOOSE to publish without DRM. Amazon allows this, as does Smashwords (doesn't even have the option to add it). So when you say, "by publishers like Amazon," you're factually simply wrong. It's publishers like John Doe and Random House, all of whom know damned well that the Half Pocket Experiment I posited, above, would yield an individual with empty pockets at the end of their walk.

Hitch

[eschwartz]

Psst, Hitch. You forgot the Posted By thing for the guy you quoted after me.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Psst, Hitch. You forgot the Posted By thing for the guy you quoted after me.

Oh, CRAP!!!

Sorry, @Eschwartz. I'll go edit it.

Hitch

[Sgt.Stubby]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

But with all this odd discussion about "intent", I do not see how the "progression of art" inherently requires a public domain.

No one here said progression of art "inherently requires a public domain".

Art and science will always make progress, now matter how jailed it is. It's not interesting to talk about whether or not there is progress - of course there is some progress under any model.

What's interesting is how can access to works of art/culture/science be maximized - for maximum effect.

Consider the effect of copyright on Mickey Mouse:

years 1-8: provided Walt Disney sufficient incentive to create Mickey Mouse

years 9-75:
* blocked creators of derivitive works from contributing Mickey Mouse-based works to society, thus reducing the potential number of works created by tens of thousands of pieces of new material
* kept a market-rate price tag on the content for 65+ years, thus hindering the number of viewers it can reach
* reduced the reproduction of it to a single entity, and those they grant permissions to, further reducing the number of viewers reached
* discouraged innovation from creators of non-derivitive works that would incidentally be similar enough to Mickey Mouse to be cause for litigation and liability

100 years later: interest in derivitive and similar works lost because Mickey Mouse got old, and thus it's too late to counter the damage from years after ~5-10.

It's easy to justify ~5-10 years of copyright on Mickey Mouse. Very hard to justify the following decades, unless you've made the means the ends, and erroneously believe the creator is the intended beneficiary of copyright and not society. Benefits to the creator are purely incidental to ensuring society gets the most of creative works.

Getting that backwards is damaging. Making the creator the intended beneficiary of copyright has a perverse effect that actually hinders the amount of access people have to creative works.

Originally Posted by eschwartz

But as far as the original intent goes, in order to promulgate the spread of art, no PD is needed.

Of course PD is not needed for spread to happen, but why would you find that interesting to point out? What's interesting is how PD increases the propagation of creative works. PD is absolutely needed when propagating for maximum effect.

Originally Posted by eschwartz

All I'm saying is, copyright was NOT the result of someone saying "how can I make sure content creators can get money", but neither was it "how can I ensure the public domain grows".

Agreed.

Originally Posted by eschwartz

It was "how can I ensure people create more things".

Indeed - that's the short of it. But it's a little more complex because it neglects the very important expiration on copyright - which ensures that more people get access to more works (which is the bigger picture - the reason to get more things created in the first place).