Death of copyright, film at 11?

[Robotech_Master]

Anyway: what about the assertions brought up in the original article?

Is copyright law in danger of becoming irrelevant when the darknets come?

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Perhaps you'd feel a little differently if you depended on intellectual property rights for your livelyhood.

I have a right, as an author, to benefit from my work for AT LEAST my lifetime. I also feel that I should be able to pass on the "fruits" of my work to my descendents, just as I can with my other property.

Not one whit more than a bricklayer, or a carpenter.

And certainly not with the public dime maintaining that extended income in ANY way.

Copyrights provide a benefit to society, That is why they exist at all. But there is an optimal period for beyond which the cost to society outweighs the benefit. This period is not entirely abstract and can be statistically measured, such as in this rather dry academic meme. If you look around academia it is still generally quantified as a twelve to fourteen year range.

Now you may wish to have an extended copyright, and there is no doubt that that would benefit you personally. There is also no credible refutation that it is a drag on the society in which you live and that as much as writers and publishers whine about the cost of enforcement the cost therein is no where near enough to pay for what the process costs society.

Extended copyrights are not morally or ethically justifiable.
Expect to be fighting a losing battle stumping for them in a community full of scholarly nerds who will read every link and footnote in the debate

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Certainly we don't "shut them down", but their ownership should revert to the state. As a good socialist I firmly believe that businesses should be run for the benefit of society, not for a "profit" motive.

I firmly believe that books should be written for the benefit of society, not for a "profit" motive. should be just as true for you then.

Your "some animals are more equal than others" is showing, Harry

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by HarryT

As a good socialist I firmly believe that businesses should be run for the benefit of society, not for a "profit" motive.

Originally Posted by Phogg

Copyrights provide a benefit to society...

Without copyrights... creators will have no "benefit" for creation, other than purely altruistic motives. Since many creators create in order to make a living, not just for altruistic motives... and they clearly won't be able to do that anymore... the abolishment of copyright will mean, quite simply, a very significant loss of creative content.

If we can't maintain a copyright system, we'll need some organization just sitting by with cash, ready to hand it to any creator who asks for it in order to release their creation. But you'll have to live with standard rewards that may not reflect the real value of the creation ("You gave him how much for that?").

Personally, I'd rather have copyrights and more content. But that's me.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Personally, I'd rather have copyrights and more content. But that's me.

Yes. The question is, how much copyright should we have. McCauley said it well:

"It is good that authors should be remunerated; and the least exceptionable way of remunerating them is by a monopoly. Yet monopoly is an evil. For the sake of the good we must submit to the evil; but the evil ought not to last a day longer than is necessary for the purpose of securing the good."
[...]
"For consider this; the evil effects of the monopoly are proportioned to the length of its duration. But the good effects for the sake of which we bear with the evil effects are by no means proportioned to the length of its duration. A monopoly of sixty years produces twice as much evil as a monopoly of thirty years, and thrice as much evil as a monopoly of twenty years. But it is by no means the fact that a posthumous monopoly of sixty years gives to an author thrice as much pleasure and thrice as strong a motive as a posthumous monopoly of twenty years. On the contrary, the difference is so small as to be hardly perceptible. We all know how faintly we are affected by the prospect of very distant advantages, even when they are advantages which we may reasonably hope that we shall ourselves enjoy. But an advantage that is to be enjoyed more than half a century after we are dead, by somebody, we know not by whom, perhaps by somebody unborn, by somebody utterly unconnected with us, is really no motive at all to action."

[Talking of Dr Johnson's dictionary, out of copyright at the time, but that would still be in copyright if proposed changes to copyright had been in effect at the time.]
"I can buy the Dictionary, the entire genuine Dictionary, for two guineas, perhaps for less; I might have had to give five or six guineas for it. Do I grudge this to a man like Dr Johnson? Not at all. Show me that the prospect of this boon roused him to any vigorous effort, or sustained his spirits under depressing circumstances, and I am quite willing to pay the price of such an object, heavy as that price is. But what I do complain of is that my circumstances are to be worse, and Johnson's none the better; that I am to give five pounds for what to him was not worth a farthing."
[...]
"Now, I again say that I think it but fair that we should pay twenty thousand pounds in consideration of twenty thousand pounds' worth of pleasure and encouragement received by Dr Johnson. But I think it very hard that we should pay twenty thousand pounds for what he would not have valued at five shillings."

[Robotech_Master]

Anyway: what about the assertions brought up in the original article?

Is copyright law in danger of becoming irrelevant when the darknets come?

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by Robotech_Master

Anyway: what about the assertions brought up in the original article?

Is copyright law in danger of becoming irrelevant when the darknets come?

I would say it is not in the slightest in danger because of "The darknets"

It is hugely in danger because more and more of the general public see it as abusive and see those who employ it as indolent slackers who wish to live a life of ease based on a tiny amount of work done in their youth.

At one time this was a subject that few people contemplated at all - if they were even aware of what a copyright was. The RIAA war against their independent artist competitors and the public in general has brought the mater before the world consciousness.

[Amalthia]

I don't think that darknet can be much of a danger since so many books on it are missing relevant formatting (like bolds, italics, and sometimes paragraphs)

If it takes 5-6 hours to "fix" a book it would have been better to just buy a not so expensive copy from one of the ebook stores. (assuming of course that it's being sold somewhere)

not sure how valuable everyone's else's time is...

I also agree that lifetime +70 years is excessive.

Though I do think lifetime is important because sometimes books don't get recognized right away. Moby Dick anyone? So I do think it's fair the author is rewarded if the book takes off during their lifetime. And I think 25 years is plenty of time for any children of the author to grow up and find their own careers not depend on mom and dad's creativity and hard work to keep them fed and sheltered.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The law needs to be changed to grant the creators of intellectual property the same rights as the creators of "physical" property.

That's considerably less than IP currently gets.

Right now, copyrighted material is fixed in a tangible form. (Book, CD, canvas painting, video, whatever.) That material can't be copied without permission.

PHYSICAL property can be copied at will. Can be used in performances. Can be taken apart and mixed with other physical property. When you sell the bookshelf you made, you don't have the right to say "this must hold books; you may not use it as a ladder in your play; you may not chop it up for shingles; you may not make another that looks just like it."

What, exactly, is the "property" you'd want to protect? You don't own the language. You didn't invent grammar. In writing a story, you've assembled a set of parts you didn't make, in accordance with rules you didn't make, with tools you didn't make (a pencil, a keyboard)... why should that be treated any differently from making a chair from boards & dowels?

The purpose of IP law was to give intellectual "property" MORE protections than physical property has, because of the fact that, when you sell IP, you haven't lost it. You can sell it again and again.

But there is no innate, natural right to be allowed to exclusively sell it for your whole life, or longer. We invented that right. We could reconsider, and decide the benefits of that right are not worth the problems it causes.

It benefits YOU if you can keep the monopoly going for life + 50 years. It benefits your heirs. It does not benefit the rest of society. And sometimes, everyone else's benefits outweigh yours. The tipping point is when the incentive for one person has become a bigger roadblock to others--is it causing more damage to allow you this monopoly than to allow others to break it?

You, personally, probably not. However, there are a tremendous number of artistic and scientific works being stifled by IP law, a tremendous number of educational opportunities being prevented. (As noted elsewhere here--Diary of Anne Frank is not in the public domain; only those wealthy enough to afford the asking price can learn from it. However, anyone is free to learn from Shakespeare or Dickens; cheap paper versions & free ebooks abound. Think the Diary is so cheap anyone can afford a copy? Obviously, you've never worked for a cash-strapped school district.)

IP law should protect that monopoly just long enough to provide an incentive to create & release new works, not "as long as it could possibly bring any income to the creator & heirs thereof."

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Certainly we don't "shut them down", but their ownership should revert to the state. As a good socialist I firmly believe that businesses should be run for the benefit of society, not for a "profit" motive.

Been there. Done that. Reverted to sanity. "Profit" motive is the sole reason for running a business. Altruism is for charities.

Derek

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by delphidb96

Been there. Done that. Reverted to sanity. "Profit" motive is the sole reason for running a business. Altruism is for charities.

Derek

An interesting attitude. Let's take an example - is the US Postal Service run for the benefit of society, or to make a profit for its owners (the government)?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

An interesting attitude. Let's take an example - is the US Postal Service run for the benefit of society, or to make a profit for its owners (the government)?

it is a legal monopoly reserved for the U.S. government, with all the drawbacks and limitations of a monopoly. Could a private service work better? We'll never know, because it's illegal to found one...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

it is a legal monopoly reserved for the U.S. government, with all the drawbacks and limitations of a monopoly. Could a private service work better? We'll never know, because it's illegal to found one...

That's the point that I was making, Ralph. The post office in many European countries (including the UK) has been "privatized" and is run as a profit-making business. Many would argue that doing so has resulted in a much more efficient business, because they are competing against many other rivals, especially in the area of parcel deliveries. Why has the US reserved the postal service as a government monopoly? I would suggest that it's because it's considered that it's beneficial to the country as a whole to have it so.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's the point that I was making, Ralph. The post office in many European countries (including the UK) has been "privatized" and is run as a profit-making business. Many would argue that doing so has resulted in a much more efficient business, because they are competing against many other rivals, especially in the area of parcel deliveries. Why has the US reserved the postal service as a government monopoly? I would suggest that it's because it's considered that it's beneficial to the country as a whole to have it so.

No, it is because the incumbent politicians can get all sort of free mailing priviledges with the status quo, which they use for campaigning, that they would lose if the postal service were privatized. And there is no lobby willing to spend enough money to brib---, excuse me, to lobby for the change.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's the point that I was making, Ralph. The post office in many European countries (including the UK) has been "privatized" and is run as a profit-making business. Many would argue that doing so has resulted in a much more efficient business, because they are competing against many other rivals, especially in the area of parcel deliveries. Why has the US reserved the postal service as a government monopoly? I would suggest that it's because it's considered that it's beneficial to the country as a whole to have it so.

Having considerable experience with American government work - I would submit that politicians not wanting to be embarrassed by being out worked by the private sector, or lose the revenue and power that the postal service brings in is a more likely reason.