Fair Use?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

I think the argument is the pipes and wrenches used by plumbers are paid for. While a writer pays for pencil and paper the use of the culture around them didn't cost them a penny.

One could equally say that the plumber is not inventing out of thin air the techniques of plumbing - he's using the knowledge of all the thousands of years of plumbing that predate him.

Pretty much any activity one can think of involves the re-use of knowledge gained by others; writing certainly isn't unique in this respect.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by HarryT

One could equally say that the plumber is not inventing out of thin air the techniques of plumbing - he's using the knowledge of all the thousands of years of plumbing that predate him.

Pretty much any activity one can think of involves the re-use of knowledge gained by others; writing certainly isn't unique in this respect.

The plumber doesn't have the power to stop others from using the same techniques. Someone else can be called to fix the pipes next time, you do not have to make a payment every time you pour something down the drain. You can sell the house and the plumbing with it. You can replace a shower head yourself and not have to pay if someone else uses your shower.

The writer gets a monopoly for life+70 more years probably extended to life+90 in a few years. The writer is getting special treatment the plumber is not.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

The plumber doesn't have the power to stop others from using the same techniques.

And neither does the writer. You are entirely free to write books about a boy going to a school for wizards; the fact that Joanne Rowling has already done so doesn't prevent someone else from doing so. All that you can't do is copy her exact work.

[GeoffC]

From what I've seen the plumber probably gets more money per hour, than most authors.

This thread highlights two different totally opposite points of view, reading some of the comments, neither of these views will be conciled any day soon .....

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

From what I've seen the plumber probably gets more money per hour, than most authors.

I imagine the same is true for most creative people. I used to make a reasonable living from writing and selling my own software, but I know that my return from doing so was way, way under the "minimum wage".

[Moejoe]

Plumbers and bricklayers are definitely worth a lot more than writers and artists. They provide essential services and have verifiable skills. I don't know about anybody else, but I'm not calling any poets over to fix my toilet when it overflows

And to be frank all these arguments we have are pretty much redundant. The digital takes no sides, it has already decreed that everything must be free to be usable within its realm. It will not allow any outdated notions of ownership and copyright. It will route around them and make them obsolete in the process.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

And to be frank all these arguments we have are pretty much redundant. The digital takes no sides, it has already decreed that everything must be free to be usable within its realm. It will not allow any outdated notions of ownership and copyright. It will route around them and make them obsolete in the process.

Do you not think that it's true to say that the fact that so-called "piracy" enables people to get content for free only works because the majority of people do pay for what they consume? If nobody paid, there would be no works to pirate. Pirates are leeching from the honest purchasers.

[omk3]

First of all, I am happy for other people to "leech" from me, as you put it, if I can and want to support someone and they can't (or for any other reason won't). Because I believe that knowledge and culture should be free for all. If I choose to support an artist, it doesn't follow that everyone should do the same.

Second, this has been discussed before, again and again. Art started before money was even invented. There is in many of us an urge to create. Money has nothing to do with it. It may afford you more time to do it, but that is all. The urge to create is there regardless.

Look at all the free books out there. Look at all the open-source free software. Is money the driving force behind those? It's the urge to create, and the wish to share and contribute. Which are nobler than money.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

From what I've seen the plumber probably gets more money per hour, than most authors.

This thread highlights two different totally opposite points of view, reading some of the comments, neither of these views will be conciled any day soon .....

No they won't, but I baked chocolate cupcakes yesterday would you like one?

Here's the problem, HarryT's side is about money and payment. Someone writes they should get money if they can. I understand it but it is a narrow view and while claiming that it gives a writer the same rights as any other profession it actually gives them more.

My side is about limiting or even going so far as to remove monopolies. If you as I do, see all work as derivative then you don't understand why one person can remix and mash up what came before but the next person can't use this new remix or mash up as a part of their own. If the laws were balanced they'd say well you can but wait a reasonable time to take your turn and then maybe you can profit too. They'd say well maybe if you're not doing it commercially then who the hell cares. They might even go so far as to say if you really can't wait here's a set fee you can pay and the copyright holder can't say no even if they don't like your version. They'd probably say if your dvd is scratched it's okay to get someone else to send you a digital copy if you failed to or don't know how to make a backup. They'd make the penalties for infringement something like say, triple what the rights holder would have received if the infringer had just bought a copy unless you could show damages to the contrary. They'd have penalties for false accusations of infringement say a non trivial fine for a false DMCA takedown notice because some copyright enforcing script found your book report on Harry Potter. They'd limit enforcement measures because while infringement is not legal the possible lack of a few royalties doesn't balance out against privacy and civil liberties violations that go along with border searches of data on electronic devices or close monitoring and/or cutting off of people's internet connections. For the last one think of it this way, you don't put out a dragnet to catch jaywalkers. They'd require registration with a nominal processing fee within a reasonable time, say 1 year to get copyright protection, perhaps allow someone to mark something as copyright pending and a date to warn off of infringement before registration the way patent pending is used now.

Hmm That was all in no particular order. Anyway cupcake?

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you not think that it's true to say that the fact that so-called "piracy" enables people to get content for free only works because the majority of people do pay for what they consume? If nobody paid, there would be no works to pirate. Pirates are leeching from the honest purchasers.

No it is not true to say and in fact it is a complete fabrication. 'Pirates' as you call them, but I will call them what they truly are, people, will reward what they deem as worthy of reward. The only reason we have the uproar now is that we're in transition from object models to non-object models of culture. A balance will come, but it cannot be enforced. I like to think of digital culture using a busker analogy.

If I see someone busking in the street, maybe performing a sterling rendition of an old Neil Young song, or maybe their own song that's a lot like Neil Young, I might pay that busker whatever I can afford because I've enjoyed the performance. Maybe I won't because I don't have any money on me. Maybe I don't like Neil Young and the busker irritates me as I pass by. Maybe I love Neil Young and the rendition offends me. Maybe I don't like Neil Young or the busker's voice but I admire that she's out there giving it her all and I give her some money as a reward. Whatever the outcome, pay, don't pay, like, don't like, the culture remains and is available to all within earshot of the busker. The money is not the goal, the creation of culture is, the pefromance is. Everyone who passes by the busker gets to hear the song, but it is up to the passers by to give that song a monetary value, or not, as the case may be. The performer must take her chances that she is recieved well by the community. If not, then she still got to peform and do something she loved. Everyone wins.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

My side is about limiting or even going so far as to remove monopolies. If you as I do, see all work as derivative then you don't understand why one person can remix and mash up what came before but the next person can't use this new remix or mash up as a part of their own.

I honestly don't understand why you think that copyright law prevents this: it doesn't. If reading Joanne Rowling's books gives you the inspiration to write your own book about boy wizards, then you are entirely free to do so. All that copyright law says is that you can't call your wizard "Harry Potter" or directly copy Ms. Rowling's story. Other than that, you are completely free to write whatever you wish.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

No it is not true to say and in fact it is a complete fabrication. 'Pirates' as you call them, but I will call them what they truly are, people, will reward what they deem as worthy of reward.

With the very greatest respect, Moejoe, it is not a "fabrication". It is entirely true to say that the commercial content which is currently available for unauthorised download would not have been released had there not been a commercial market for it, and that the only reason that it can be downloaded is because it has been released for commercial sale. People who download it without paying for it are only able to do so on the backs of those who have paid for it. If nobody paid for that content, it would not exist.

You may well argue that this is an unsustainable economic model, but it is the model that exists at the present time, and it is an undeniable fact that the people who are popularly called "pirates" (I call them something different, as do you) are taking advantage of those who buy that content.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I honestly don't understand why you think that copyright law prevents this: it doesn't. If reading Joanne Rowling's books gives you the inspiration to write your own book about boy wizards, then you are entirely free to do so. All that copyright law says is that you can't call your wizard "Harry Potter" or directly copy Ms. Rowling's story. Other than that, you are completely free to write whatever you wish.

That's not entirely true. If all I wanted to do was say use a magical sorting hat to divide up students I'd probably be facing a lawsuit. Haryr potter added to the culture, I don't want to remake it but i might want to make use of some bits. Niven's ringworld is a wonderful playground it has been years why not let other people play there freely? For that matter how would Ms Rowling be harmed if someone wrote a story about Dumbledore's first day at hogwarts? One would assume she could do the same and outsell the competition and if she couldn't why wouldthere still not be room for both?

I know the reason we don't allow this. I know that just transforming someone's book into a film or an audiobook is not cool during the copyright period. But the monopoly is too strong and too long.

If you haven't noticed I'm the MODERATE in this argument. I'm asking for some sanity in these laws. But you know what, Omk3 and Moejoe are right, if you're in it for the money then it's probably the wrong buisness. The money from copyright protection can leave someone with the time to create more but if the goal isn't creating then why not become plumber? I'm not talking about journalists or technical writers, I'm talking about novelists.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you not think that it's true to say that the fact that so-called "piracy" enables people to get content for free only works because the majority of people do pay for what they consume? If nobody paid, there would be no works to pirate. Pirates are leeching from the honest purchasers.

Again, it's quite irrelevant. What matters is profit. Take games - they've barely dipped, and are doing a lot better than the recession in general. And the failure of specific games has been traced, again and again, to draconian DRM.

(AC2 sold miserably on the PC, and had a VERY high return rate...I know several major shops have told Ubisoft they will NOT be stocking any titles using that DRM system again, period!)

And for reference, of the RPG's I've worked on, some of my work is available for free download, one entire RPG is CC-licensed and you can copy the rules of my d20/OGL work...

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

With the very greatest respect, Moejoe, it is not a "fabrication". It is entirely true to say that the commercial content which is currently available for unauthorised download would not have been released had there not been a commercial market for it, and that the only reason that it can be downloaded is because it has been released for commercial sale. People who download it without paying for it are only able to do so on the backs of those who have paid for it. If nobody paid for that content, it would not exist.

That is not what you said, that is what you are saying now as an extrapolation.

What you said was:

Do you not think that it's true to say that the fact that so-called "piracy" enables people to get content for free only works because the majority of people do pay for what they consume? If nobody paid, there would be no works to pirate. Pirates are leeching from the honest purchasers.

And I will again re-state that what you said is fabrication. I do not think nor do I see it as fact that so-called piracy enables people to get content for free because the majority of (honest) people do pay for what they consume. Pirates, or people who share, pay for their content too, in droves and are originators of interest that flows out across the digital realm. Piracy, or what I like to call 'being a human being in the digital age' is a cornerstone of the digital experience. The big mistake you make is to think that pirates don't pay for products, and it's the same mistake I hear again and again from the uninformed. Read just one or two .nfo's and you know what you'll see? It won't be 'ha-ha-ha' we get this shit for free. This is what you'll see:

Please pay for the full product (or words to that affect).

And as to your last statment:

If nobody paid, there would be no works to pirate. Pirates are leeching from the honest purchasers.

Pirates are 'honest' purchasers, more so than non-pirates if you want a few recent reports to look over. And to be frank, there's nothing honest in being a consumer of corporate goods. There's very little honesty in a business model that pays writers a tiny percentage and then hikes up the prices to ridiculous levels for customers. And if nobody paid then maybe, just maybe, I wouldn't have to turn on the radio and listen to Lady 'buggering' Gaga every five minutes. Because that corporate musak is all about payment and not much art at all.