I am willing to pay to consumer entertainment, just like any other moral person
Ah, morality. That ethereal concept that can be used to justify everything and anything.
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkland
How is it counterproductive for me to own my works, my creations, these written extensions of my very being? They are a part of me and belong to me; they are not the product of my community, they do not belong to the people around me, they are mine. They are me, in fact. The artist and his work are totally, 100% inseparable.
Your works derive from the works of others. That is inseperable. Your works can never belong to you in the same sense as a physical good. Creative works can be reproduced and traded freely with only legal restrictions as the barrier.
It is counterproductive to the consumers of your works because if you are granted artificial ownership (ie copyright) over your works, access to your works is limited. It is counterproductive to YOU because while you might enjoy some benefits from your work, what about your consumption of works by others?
It is counterproductive to you personally by eliminating respect for copyright laws. When there is no respect for copyright laws, you recieve less income for you works (as individuals then buy more unauthorised copies than authorised).
My family, coworkers and friends all share books freely. The only time we buy more than one copy is if we want to own it for any particular reason.
That's fine, so long as you're not MAKING A COPY.
Quote:
And what about libraries? If you book is good enough to worry about people sharing it, libraries will have it and anyone can interlibrary loan it through their local library if not.
That's fine, there's no copying there. If there is, I deserve to be paid. For each and every copy. But so long as one copy goes out, and one copy comes back, and no copies are made in the tween, I'm not being harmed.
Quote:
Maybe, but I'd really be curious about how much that really happens.
My book will be part of a series of four, which may have a second series of four attached to it, should I ever publish it. Everytime a new book comes out, sales of the old books will spike. I deserve all the income from those spikes that should come to me as the copyright holder. It will take well over 10 years to get all four books out.
Why do you want to screw me out of the income I deserve for my first book's sales spike when the fourth is released?
Why do you hate artists so much that you want to take away our ownership of our works, which are part of ourselves?
Where is the difference to YOU between loaning someone a copy and making them a copy? Should computers and book readers ever replace books themselves, the concept of loaning someone a copy disappears. In the digital age, you can only copy works, not loan them.
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkland
Why do you want to screw me out of the income I deserve for my first book's sales spike when the fourth is released?
Why do you hate artists so much that you want to take away our ownership of our works, which are part of ourselves?
Stop twisting our words. We do not hate artists. We do not want to screw you out of income. The concept of morality in copyright is a very recent one used mainly to justify excessive copyright (as you are doing here).
How is it excessive to want to hold onto the work I sweat and cry over, slave over to finish, pour myself into, for the majority of my life?
How is 50 years of ownership excessive when one creates a work of art that could potentially be available to posterity throughout the remainder of all time?
And who the hell are you to decide what is excessive when I am the creator of the work?
What have you created?
What sort of art do you make?
I support the public domain. I support Creative Commons, and have licensed out every piece of nonfiction I've ever written under a CC license (Attrib-NonComm-Share Alike, if you're curious). I oppose perpetual copyrights and the Sonny Bono Act.
But that's not enough for you zealots? Unless I abrogate my ownership rights after a worthless pittance of a time, a mere moment, in truth less time than it's taking me to write the damn thing, I'm one of the bad guys to you fanatics.
I might be able to accept 40, or just flat 50. But anything less than half an average human lifespan is way too short.
Copyright was created as an incentive to create, not to retire.
I can't remember the original numbers, but I think it was something like 20 years was the original duration. Considering that was back when the potential market and means of distribution was much, much, much smaller than it is now the duration should be even less.
And while you may consider your creations to be some part of your vital essence, that is really irrelevant to anyone who will pay you money for them. All we (the rest of the world) cares about is how much incentive we need to provide to get you to release your creations for public consumption. Hell, we don't even care about your specific creations, just as long as somebody provides us with entertainment/knowledge.
For some forms of media (pop songs) one year would be enough. For others (large compendiums of statistics, facts, or other hard to collect, but little sought knowledge) more protection is required.
Other concerns relating to derivitization and intellectual control play a role, but bottom line, the public shouldn't be paying more than the bare minimum necessary incentive.
So yes, let the artists starve and live terrible lives. Down with art! Give the filthy hoi polloi their free entertianment and run out of town anyone who wants just compensation!
You don't need to worry about this any time soon. People do not like reading off of computer screens. We have a hard enough time getting patrons to adopt electronic articles and books are nowhere near taking off.
Furthermore, in no way can you convincingly demonstrate that file sharing has hurt music sales. Even if you could, it would be a fallacy to take that and arbitrarily apply it to printed materials, particularly books.
Quote:
That's fine, there's no copying there. If there is, I deserve to be paid. For each and every copy. But so long as one copy goes out, and one copy comes back, and no copies are made in the tween, I'm not being harmed.
But professionals that deal with this every day see the problem with this argument immediately. Your problem is that money isn't coming to you when people come into contact with your work. In practical terms, there is no difference in effect to you whether I contact your material through a borrowed copy and a electronic copy.
Quote:
My book will be part of a series of four, which may have a second series of four attached to it, should I ever publish it. Everytime a new book comes out, sales of the old books will spike. I deserve all the income from those spikes that should come to me as the copyright holder. It will take well over 10 years to get all four books out.
Like I said, I'll make sure I look into sales curves of books and whether this is a isolated situation. If it is, then you are essentially saying that the great benefits to society at large that affect essentially every part of life need to be compromised because of the desires of a small minority of authors. But, like I said, I'll look into it.
Quote:
Why do you hate artists so much that you want to take away our ownership of our works, which are part of ourselves?
Cool off. Not only have a been an artist most of my life, but in recent years I have released all my work under open licenses, most recently CC. In addition, I deal with these copyright issues on a daily basis and am thus fully aware of the significance of the recent restrictions. I also know that most people don't realize the restrictions being imposed on libraries that, if publishers have their way, will effectively impose more limits on us than we had before computers. It could have a significant impact on education in the US and information access for the public, including businesses.
I think it's clear that you are unaware of the impact of highly restrictive copyright. Maybe we'll have to learn the hard way. In the meantime, watch the lessig video linked to above, read the Stallman article linked to by Barto as well as what Harald provided, buy lessig's books or read them online and do some research on copyright and cyberlaw.
You have to be willing to learn about it if you are going to hold such an aggressive position. Copyright lawyers I've talked to, including a close uncle who is the senior copyright lawyer at a major science publisher, are much more open than you are being.
So yes, let the artists starve and live terrible lives. Down with art! Give the filthy hoi polloi their free entertianment and run out of town anyone who wants just compensation!
You can be compensated without being excessively compensated. You might also find that in a market where copyright is respected and goods are cheaper, you recieve more compensation. And excuse us for not being taken in by your soap opera "woe betides me" act.
I write computer programs. I release them under the GPL but understand and respect people who do not write free software. What I do not respect is the use of excessive protections like modern copyright.
How is it excessive to want to hold onto the work I sweat and cry over, slave over to finish, pour myself into, for the majority of my life?
There are many artists here, including myself. I also have more than enough contact with all levels of various art and music scenes to know that it is highly unlikely you will make substantial amounts of money from the work you make. The vast majority of artists and musicians make so little that this argument that artists hurt is a joke.
So yes, let the artists starve and live terrible lives. Down with art! Give the filthy hoi polloi their free entertianment and run out of town anyone who wants just compensation!
Hooray for the revolution!
Wait, why's there nothing left on TV?
Kirk, can you put aside the dramatics for a moment and address this simple question-
If copyright protections of shorter duration and lesser extent (say 10 years) still provided enough incentive to keep artists producing, is there any reason they should be greater? I'm really not sure what you're arguing.
I always thought the original point of copyright laws way back when was to provide the artist with a reasonable income to compensate the artist for the ability to produce the work originally. And the shorter durations were to encourage the artists to continue producing meaningful work to benefit society as a whole. Anything beyond that makes art a source of income as oppposed to being a joy to create and share - at least Frank Zappa was honest when he came out with We're Only In It For The Money.
Man, I look back at the songs I've made and the computer programs I've written, and if anyone still has use for them ten years after I put them out - feel FREE to do so! Just make sure my name is somewhere on them in case anyone wants to get back to me with feedback.
Are the songs I purchase intellectual or actual property?
If the former and I buy the right to listen to those tunes why can't I get them replaced at low cost once the media becomes defective. Why do I have to pay as much again each time the format is changed: vinyl to CD, CD to MD, MD to MP3 the 'property is the same. I've paid to listen to it what difference does it make what means I use to do so? The same could apply to books.
If such things are actual property, like a sandwich or a chair or something that I could also make copies of... why can't I do what i want with it. I do not take an actual thing from anyone?
Treat the purchases like a licence. Replace worn out goods at cost, allow fair use stop trying to re-sell the same old product in different packaging and i'd have some sympathy.
BTW...
How come plumbers/electricians/labourers work doesn't deserve protection? Why shouldn't the person who designed and installed the wiring in your home deserve the respect for his work that 'intellectual property rights' convey on writers and musicians? "of course the two way switched, dimmer uplighting in the lounge was my idea but they blatantly copied it for the hall!'
Grow up. Give added value, stuff that can't be copied with noughts and ones. There are plenty of cheaper Cola's on the market, Coke don't bitch instead it makes us want to pay for theirs despite the cost. If I can and would want to copy your s**t for free.... more fool you.
The next school year 900,000 american children will sit through 45 minute classes "educating" them about copyright. At the end of the year, they have to write an essay "to get the word out that downloading copyrighted entertainment is illegal and unethical"
If they are good little kiddies, they might win prizes such as:
an all-expenses-paid trip to Hollywood
a Sony DVD player and library of 14 hit movies on DVDs
a selection of 21 Hollywood classic DVDs
Quote:
Students learn to repeat the program's motto: ''If you don't pay for it, you've stolen it."
When organisations like the MPAA are allowed to push their message to children in classrooms, western governments (America in this case) have well and truely been corrupted. This is no better than letting drug dealers into classrooms.
Comments
Originally posted by Kirkland
I am willing to pay to consumer entertainment, just like any other moral person
Ah, morality. That ethereal concept that can be used to justify everything and anything.
Originally posted by Kirkland
How is it counterproductive for me to own my works, my creations, these written extensions of my very being? They are a part of me and belong to me; they are not the product of my community, they do not belong to the people around me, they are mine. They are me, in fact. The artist and his work are totally, 100% inseparable.
Your works derive from the works of others. That is inseperable. Your works can never belong to you in the same sense as a physical good. Creative works can be reproduced and traded freely with only legal restrictions as the barrier.
It is counterproductive to the consumers of your works because if you are granted artificial ownership (ie copyright) over your works, access to your works is limited. It is counterproductive to YOU because while you might enjoy some benefits from your work, what about your consumption of works by others?
It is counterproductive to you personally by eliminating respect for copyright laws. When there is no respect for copyright laws, you recieve less income for you works (as individuals then buy more unauthorised copies than authorised).
Barto
Originally posted by giant
My family, coworkers and friends all share books freely. The only time we buy more than one copy is if we want to own it for any particular reason.
That's fine, so long as you're not MAKING A COPY.
And what about libraries? If you book is good enough to worry about people sharing it, libraries will have it and anyone can interlibrary loan it through their local library if not.
That's fine, there's no copying there. If there is, I deserve to be paid. For each and every copy. But so long as one copy goes out, and one copy comes back, and no copies are made in the tween, I'm not being harmed.
Maybe, but I'd really be curious about how much that really happens.
My book will be part of a series of four, which may have a second series of four attached to it, should I ever publish it. Everytime a new book comes out, sales of the old books will spike. I deserve all the income from those spikes that should come to me as the copyright holder. It will take well over 10 years to get all four books out.
Why do you want to screw me out of the income I deserve for my first book's sales spike when the fourth is released?
Why do you hate artists so much that you want to take away our ownership of our works, which are part of ourselves?
Originally posted by Kirkland
That's fine, so long as you're not MAKING A COPY.
Where is the difference to YOU between loaning someone a copy and making them a copy? Should computers and book readers ever replace books themselves, the concept of loaning someone a copy disappears. In the digital age, you can only copy works, not loan them.
Originally posted by Kirkland
Why do you want to screw me out of the income I deserve for my first book's sales spike when the fourth is released?
Why do you hate artists so much that you want to take away our ownership of our works, which are part of ourselves?
Stop twisting our words. We do not hate artists. We do not want to screw you out of income. The concept of morality in copyright is a very recent one used mainly to justify excessive copyright (as you are doing here).
Barto
How is 50 years of ownership excessive when one creates a work of art that could potentially be available to posterity throughout the remainder of all time?
What have you created?
What sort of art do you make?
I support the public domain. I support Creative Commons, and have licensed out every piece of nonfiction I've ever written under a CC license (Attrib-NonComm-Share Alike, if you're curious). I oppose perpetual copyrights and the Sonny Bono Act.
But that's not enough for you zealots? Unless I abrogate my ownership rights after a worthless pittance of a time, a mere moment, in truth less time than it's taking me to write the damn thing, I'm one of the bad guys to you fanatics.
It's disgusting.
Originally posted by Kirkland
20 years is not long enough.
I might be able to accept 40, or just flat 50. But anything less than half an average human lifespan is way too short.
Copyright was created as an incentive to create, not to retire.
I can't remember the original numbers, but I think it was something like 20 years was the original duration. Considering that was back when the potential market and means of distribution was much, much, much smaller than it is now the duration should be even less.
And while you may consider your creations to be some part of your vital essence, that is really irrelevant to anyone who will pay you money for them. All we (the rest of the world) cares about is how much incentive we need to provide to get you to release your creations for public consumption. Hell, we don't even care about your specific creations, just as long as somebody provides us with entertainment/knowledge.
For some forms of media (pop songs) one year would be enough. For others (large compendiums of statistics, facts, or other hard to collect, but little sought knowledge) more protection is required.
Other concerns relating to derivitization and intellectual control play a role, but bottom line, the public shouldn't be paying more than the bare minimum necessary incentive.
Hooray for the revolution!
Wait, why's there nothing left on TV?
Originally posted by Kirkland
That's fine, so long as you're not MAKING A COPY.
You don't need to worry about this any time soon. People do not like reading off of computer screens. We have a hard enough time getting patrons to adopt electronic articles and books are nowhere near taking off.
Furthermore, in no way can you convincingly demonstrate that file sharing has hurt music sales. Even if you could, it would be a fallacy to take that and arbitrarily apply it to printed materials, particularly books.
That's fine, there's no copying there. If there is, I deserve to be paid. For each and every copy. But so long as one copy goes out, and one copy comes back, and no copies are made in the tween, I'm not being harmed.
But professionals that deal with this every day see the problem with this argument immediately. Your problem is that money isn't coming to you when people come into contact with your work. In practical terms, there is no difference in effect to you whether I contact your material through a borrowed copy and a electronic copy.
My book will be part of a series of four, which may have a second series of four attached to it, should I ever publish it. Everytime a new book comes out, sales of the old books will spike. I deserve all the income from those spikes that should come to me as the copyright holder. It will take well over 10 years to get all four books out.
Like I said, I'll make sure I look into sales curves of books and whether this is a isolated situation. If it is, then you are essentially saying that the great benefits to society at large that affect essentially every part of life need to be compromised because of the desires of a small minority of authors. But, like I said, I'll look into it.
Why do you hate artists so much that you want to take away our ownership of our works, which are part of ourselves?
Cool off. Not only have a been an artist most of my life, but in recent years I have released all my work under open licenses, most recently CC. In addition, I deal with these copyright issues on a daily basis and am thus fully aware of the significance of the recent restrictions. I also know that most people don't realize the restrictions being imposed on libraries that, if publishers have their way, will effectively impose more limits on us than we had before computers. It could have a significant impact on education in the US and information access for the public, including businesses.
I think it's clear that you are unaware of the impact of highly restrictive copyright. Maybe we'll have to learn the hard way. In the meantime, watch the lessig video linked to above, read the Stallman article linked to by Barto as well as what Harald provided, buy lessig's books or read them online and do some research on copyright and cyberlaw.
You have to be willing to learn about it if you are going to hold such an aggressive position. Copyright lawyers I've talked to, including a close uncle who is the senior copyright lawyer at a major science publisher, are much more open than you are being.
Originally posted by Kirkland
So yes, let the artists starve and live terrible lives. Down with art! Give the filthy hoi polloi their free entertianment and run out of town anyone who wants just compensation!
You can be compensated without being excessively compensated. You might also find that in a market where copyright is respected and goods are cheaper, you recieve more compensation. And excuse us for not being taken in by your soap opera "woe betides me" act.
Barto
Originally posted by Kirkland
What have you created?
What sort of art do you make?
I write computer programs. I release them under the GPL but understand and respect people who do not write free software. What I do not respect is the use of excessive protections like modern copyright.
Barto
Originally posted by Kirkland
How is it excessive to want to hold onto the work I sweat and cry over, slave over to finish, pour myself into, for the majority of my life?
There are many artists here, including myself. I also have more than enough contact with all levels of various art and music scenes to know that it is highly unlikely you will make substantial amounts of money from the work you make. The vast majority of artists and musicians make so little that this argument that artists hurt is a joke.
Originally posted by Kirkland
So yes, let the artists starve and live terrible lives. Down with art! Give the filthy hoi polloi their free entertianment and run out of town anyone who wants just compensation!
Hooray for the revolution!
Wait, why's there nothing left on TV?
Kirk, can you put aside the dramatics for a moment and address this simple question-
If copyright protections of shorter duration and lesser extent (say 10 years) still provided enough incentive to keep artists producing, is there any reason they should be greater? I'm really not sure what you're arguing.
Man, I look back at the songs I've made and the computer programs I've written, and if anyone still has use for them ten years after I put them out - feel FREE to do so! Just make sure my name is somewhere on them in case anyone wants to get back to me with feedback.
Are the songs I purchase intellectual or actual property?
If the former and I buy the right to listen to those tunes why can't I get them replaced at low cost once the media becomes defective. Why do I have to pay as much again each time the format is changed: vinyl to CD, CD to MD, MD to MP3 the 'property is the same. I've paid to listen to it what difference does it make what means I use to do so? The same could apply to books.
If such things are actual property, like a sandwich or a chair or something that I could also make copies of... why can't I do what i want with it. I do not take an actual thing from anyone?
Treat the purchases like a licence. Replace worn out goods at cost, allow fair use stop trying to re-sell the same old product in different packaging and i'd have some sympathy.
BTW...
How come plumbers/electricians/labourers work doesn't deserve protection? Why shouldn't the person who designed and installed the wiring in your home deserve the respect for his work that 'intellectual property rights' convey on writers and musicians? "of course the two way switched, dimmer uplighting in the lounge was my idea but they blatantly copied it for the hall!'
Grow up. Give added value, stuff that can't be copied with noughts and ones. There are plenty of cheaper Cola's on the market, Coke don't bitch instead it makes us want to pay for theirs despite the cost. If I can and would want to copy your s**t for free.... more fool you.
The next school year 900,000 american children will sit through 45 minute classes "educating" them about copyright. At the end of the year, they have to write an essay "to get the word out that downloading copyrighted entertainment is illegal and unethical"
If they are good little kiddies, they might win prizes such as:
an all-expenses-paid trip to Hollywood
a Sony DVD player and library of 14 hit movies on DVDs
a selection of 21 Hollywood classic DVDs
Students learn to repeat the program's motto: ''If you don't pay for it, you've stolen it."
When organisations like the MPAA are allowed to push their message to children in classrooms, western governments (America in this case) have well and truely been corrupted. This is no better than letting drug dealers into classrooms.
Barto