Copyright is Out of Sight

[Giggleton]

Written history goes back about 5000 years, during most of this time it was perfectly acceptable to manually copy anothers words and disseminate the knowledge to whomever you so chose. There were of course various people and institutions throughout this history that did not want their words to be copied and distributed. One reason that kept popping up was the idea of a dangerously educated populace, and the fear of this populace recognizing the absurdity of their leader's actions, causing the populace to simply walk right over them.

But for the most part, copying books by hand was a labor intensive process throughout the history of the word, and access to the word was a constant problem. The best books were kept in the best places. Libraries, where books could be read and occasionally lent out to individuals and other libraries.

These libraries, while offering a central place for the word to be accessed, also allowed for the word's eradication by those who wished to diminish the power of the word, the burning and destruction of various large and influential libraries throughout history, the regression of human progress by an unknown amount of time and the loss of knowledge this destruction caused. These are defining reasons for the complete decentralization of all knowledge and the free dissemination of the word.

We are at the dawn of a new age, a technological society that is still afraid of the technology that it possesses. To fully embrace and make use of our new tools, we need to abandon the shackles that tie us to the conceptions of the past.

The word in an electronic format, no linger hindered by the weight of stone, the word can be written by anyone, and shared with everyone. Because it can be, so it will be.

The magnitude of this shift will be severe. Systems that hold onto the past will crumble under the pressure of billions of minds that wish for unfettered access to knowledge. New modes of being will arise spontaneously from this massive thought experiment, be discussed at length and abandoned just as quickly until one ideal is realized that will be the harbinger of the new day.

Copyright?

Yes, you have the right to copy, and now the means to do so, more effectively than ever before!

[outlander78]

Sounds good on (e)paper.

However, if what you say is true, the quality of fiction, the quality of research, and the general quality of world knowledge will all take a dive.

When you are a kid living with your parents (I am not saying you are), this kind of "information wants to be free" attitude makes sense. When you are a parent trying to take care of children of your own, pay for a home, food and the other necessities of life, the rule of law and the importance of intellectual property make a lot more sense.

The technology you think will enable this new world order could not be created or maintained in the world you describe.

[Piper_]

I think copyright terms are way too long.

But I would never tell someone they should work for other people (to entertain, inform) for free.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by outlander78

However, if what you say is true, the quality of fiction, the quality of research, and the general quality of world knowledge will all take a dive.

I don't see why. Content creators would need to find new ways to monetise their creations (should they feel the need to do so), but the human desire to create will never go away. It was there long before copyright laws came into being, and will still be there long after they become meaningless.

[Kali Yuga]

Thanks for the Friday afternoon technobabble.

A new technical ability to do perform an action does not, in any way shape or form, create a moral framework in which that action is permissible. It is physically possible for me to wander around and terminate the lives of a dozen people with a handgun and a big clip of ammo, far easier than if I was limited to simple melee weapons. Obviously, gaining this capability does not grant me the right to do so.

And, of course, the idea that the world will be a better place, that corporate interests will all evaporate, and that life will be full of puppies and glitter all thanks to Wondrous Technology, is slightly ridiculous.

For example, new technology gives governments and corporations unprecedented tracking and monitoring capabilities. Citizens may "burst" with an "unfettered desire for knowledge" -- about Snooki's hair and Lindsey Lohan's tastes in courtroom clothing. 12 year old kids may be willing to write about their first experiences with alcohol, without realizing those words are public and cannot be purged from the public domain.

And copyright is essentially the same thing it was 5, 10, or 20 years ago: A social contract which is enforced by laws. Making those laws easy to violate doesn't necessarily mean that doing so is valid, ethical or completely devoid of consequences....

[Giggleton]

Yes, copyright law has been around for 500 years, a fraction of the time that the written word has been here. Copyright, especially in its present form is by no means the be all end all solution to copying. In fact in its current incarnation in the United States, and other nations, copyright is directly hindering the dissemination of knowledge, i.e. the public good.

As for the quality of fiction and writing in general under no copyright, collaboration is the key, see here,
Collaborative Writing For the Benefit of All

The word, the mind in physical form. No law will ever be able to hinder its spread, nor should any law be enforced or adhered to that seeks to stop the spread.

Those who wish to lock the word behind barriers, technological or otherwise are the criminals. Every word has the potential to change the world, Any word anywhere can instill hope in the reader for a better way of being, perhaps you feel that your words do not hold this power, but the writer of words does not and cannot understand how their words will affect the reader.

There is nothing to be done except to let the word free.

[outlander78]

I agree that copyright terms are too long. Lifetime+(small number) is appropriate, lifetime x 2 is too much, and I expect Disney will just keep trying to make it longer.

In general, though, I think people forget that copyright protects more than entertainment media. If developers don't get paid, we won't get things we need, like word processors, tax software, applied science, more efficient cars - basically anything that requires resources beyond time and brainpower, or is not fun to do. Sure, developers will write Linux for free, and hobbyists will make stuff in their garages, but who is going to put them together to make and sell iPhones?

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Thanks for the Friday afternoon technobabble.

interesting. i was thinking "gobbledygook"

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

interesting. i was thinking "gobbledygook"

Uninformed drivel came to mind as well.

[sircastor]

Originally Posted by outlander78

I agree that copyright terms are too long. Lifetime+(small number) is appropriate, lifetime x 2 is too much, and I expect Disney will just keep trying to make it longer.

I think even a lifetime is far too long. Most patents are either 14 or 20 years, why is it then that copyright lasts so much longer? (that's rhetorical) The idea behind a copyright is to encourage and protect the interests of creators. There is nothing inherently wrong with that concept. I agree with copyright and it's value in society.

However, there's value to be had when various works fall into public domain. Instead of an author or artist relying on a single piece of work, that artist or author has incentive to continue to create. Once a work becomes public domain, more artists and authors can take advantage of the work and expand and extend. Now we see collaboration and value growing out of a work.

Instead, we have a society of producers fearing the day when they will no longer be able to make money from selling (or protecting) their golden eggs. They toss aside the goose (or in some cases, sell the eggs as gold when only the first one was). They live in a climate of scarcity where they will never make money again.

It's long copyrights are a horrible tragedy, because I think it's inflated the culture of piracy far more than a normal cycle of public domain growth would have.

[Catlady]

It's not that long ago that the term of a copyright in the U.S. was 28 years, renewable for an additional 28 years. I'm not sure I see the public benefit to the extension of copyright for 70 years beyond the death of the author.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by sircastor

The idea behind a copyright is to encourage and protect the interests of creators.

Monetary interests? What about the interests of the species? And the preservation of knowledge, which has now become extremely important since we are moving to an electronic form of information storage, which as we all know is so fragile.

The systems of the past are done. Copyright is obsolete and a hindrance to the advancement of our culture. Moving into the next era is going to require a shift of responsibility from the leaders of the past onto every individual. In order to properly educate these individuals, freedom to seek out and explore all knowledge will be necessary.

Any blocks encountered in this search for knowledge and information must be demolished so that the path may be cleared for yourself, and others who follow.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

I don't see why. Content creators would need to find new ways to monetise their creations (should they feel the need to do so), but the human desire to create will never go away. It was there long before copyright laws came into being, and will still be there long after they become meaningless.

Historical fact. I seem to recall that copyrigyht was abolished at some point in the French Revolution. Until it was restored, pretty much nothing new was written. Nearly all entertainment today is produced as a business, and the quality is much higher than it was when it was all done by amateurs. People don't work for free. And writers do not work alone. Most writers can't write their way out of a wet paper bag without a decent editor. Hell, a lot of them can't spell or construct coherent sentences without help. That's why we have publishers.

And, for what it's worth, yammering like yours is why publishers keep getting away with ever longer copyright terms and stricters laws to enforce them. If arguments like your are the best the other side's got, then what's the issue? Clearly, there's no serious resistance to greater copyright protection. In other words, you're part of the problem. Grow up, get a job, and maybe $10 for a book won't be so onerous.

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Monetary interests? What about the interests of the species? And the preservation of knowledge, which has now become extremely important since we are moving to an electronic form of information storage, which as we all know is so fragile.

The systems of the past are done. Copyright is obsolete and a hindrance to the advancement of our culture. Moving into the next era is going to require a shift of responsibility from the leaders of the past onto every individual. In order to properly educate these individuals, freedom to seek out and explore all knowledge will be necessary.

Any blocks encountered in this search for knowledge and information must be demolished so that the path may be cleared for yourself, and others who follow.

If you're going to pirate, you might try pirating some books on now to write better.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Monetary interests? What about the interests of the species? And the preservation of knowledge, which has now become extremely important since we are moving to an electronic form of information storage, which as we all know is so fragile.

The systems of the past are done. Copyright is obsolete and a hindrance to the advancement of our culture. Moving into the next era is going to require a shift of responsibility from the leaders of the past onto every individual. In order to properly educate these individuals, freedom to seek out and explore all knowledge will be necessary.

Any blocks encountered in this search for knowledge and information must be demolished so that the path may be cleared for yourself, and others who follow.

270,000 books are published in the US *every year* despite copyright's allegedly pernicious effect. Somehow I don't see the production of knowledge suffering.