Author Topic: Copyright & Intellectual Property  (Read 8413 times)

Valenthesial

  • Guest
Copyright & Intellectual Property
« on: July 06, 2009, 11:20:45 am »
Copyright laws mean that the creator of a "creative work" has an exclusive right to control it. Control it by dictating who has the right to make copies of it, publish it, or modify/make the original work or make derived works out of it.
The creator also can sell/rent/freely permit to others the rights to make copies/publish/modify/make derivative art.

Many different international variations are available, but those are the most common basics - so I'll use them to express my claims.

Now let's try to attack a few opinions & laws considering copyright!

EDIT: All those claims are made from the point of a would be violator of copyrights. The discussion I wish to make about those arguments is regarding those points:
A. Is it morally right/wrong to do this and B. is it legal/illegal to do it?


1. "It's alright to modify/republish an artwork, as long as I don't charge for it"

Myself, I disagree.

Reasoning:
-Let's think of someone selling his book. if someone would freely distribute copies of it on the net, the financial damages to the creator are devestating. Publishing can cause damages.

-If the artwork is being modified and used in an offensive manner (for instance explict, racist etc) it can easily lead to having bad association with the work, and thus damages it (financially AND otherwise). Modifying might cause damages.



2. "If I won't get noticed by the original creator or if I will agree to remove it when he asks me to, it's ok!"

Myself, I disagree.

Reasoning:
-Damages can still be inflicted on the time before it was discovered, as stated on the reasonings of the claim above.
-Hiding it from/or not consulidating with the original author is just downright wrong. This is especially the case the larger the target audience is (see reasonings 4&5 below).


3. "If it was not register as trademarked or notified to be copyrighted, it's ok to copy!"

Myself, I disagree.

Reasoning:
- For common international law check Berne's Convention
- Whether it was paid to have been copyrighted or not, the original creator should have those rights by default, even if he didn't specifically claimed it, it is HIS/HER work, after all.


4. "There are certain cases/usages in which copyrights should not grant the creator full control over his artwork."

Fair-use, from copyright laws (USA): (source- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use)
Quote from: wikipedia
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

       1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
       2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
       3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
       4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Myself, I agree.

Reasoning:
- Without fair-use laws, it would have been impossible to criticise let's say a movie without the creator's agreement. this would have let to a rather one sided critics.
- Once an artwork is published to the world (by the creator! not by deceptive means) it is by some part belongs to the audience. The audience have the freedom to express their opinions on it (be them good or bad) and academics have the right to research it as part of art.
- The whole reasoning behind Copyright is balancing the defending the artist's rights of ownership against the very basic right of free speech. If there is no damage inflicted upon the artist (no damage at all, not just purely financial), so goes his justification to prevent others from copying/modifying/speaking their minds on it (you are basically free to do everything as long as you do not trample on anyone else's rights).

5. "Personal use is OK!"

Myself, I agree.

Reasoning:
- From the previous claim, the less damage caused to the author the less rights he has to prevent you from your own freedom. Basic democratic laws claim you are allowed to do anything not being prohibited by laws (aka everything as long as you do not trample on anyone else's rights).
- Another derivative is the smaller the audience the smaller the damage caused. This can be argued against when the audience consists of a large fraction of the potencial market, or when it is exposed to specific people that the creator would not like it exposed to them, but on most cases I believe it holds.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2009, 11:57:29 am by Valenthesial »

Churba

  • Passion Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 1429
  • The Fresh Prince of Leeds.
    • View Profile
Re: Copyright & Intellectual Property
« Reply #1 on: July 06, 2009, 11:39:48 am »
-Let's think of someone selling his book. if someone would freely distribute copies of it on the net, the financial damages to the creator are devestating. Publishing can cause damages.
Since when? Corey Doctorow Releases ALL of his books for free on the net, as well as the sold print editions, and he makes enough to support himself and his family in a rather pricey area of London. If that's Devastating Financial Damage, then if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go Write a novel.

Valenthesial

  • Guest
Re: Copyright & Intellectual Property
« Reply #2 on: July 06, 2009, 11:54:25 am »
-Let's think of someone selling his book. if someone would freely distribute copies of it on the net, the financial damages to the creator are devestating. Publishing can cause damages.
Since when? Corey Doctorow Releases ALL of his books for free on the net, as well as the sold print editions, and he makes enough to support himself and his family in a rather pricey area of London. If that's Devastating Financial Damage, then if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go Write a novel.

I'm talking about copyright violation. What I meant to say way "Let's think of someone selling his book. if someone ELSE would freely distribute copies"

Churba

  • Passion Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 1429
  • The Fresh Prince of Leeds.
    • View Profile
Re: Copyright & Intellectual Property
« Reply #3 on: July 06, 2009, 12:26:48 pm »
-Let's think of someone selling his book. if someone would freely distribute copies of it on the net, the financial damages to the creator are devestating. Publishing can cause damages.
Since when? Corey Doctorow Releases ALL of his books for free on the net, as well as the sold print editions, and he makes enough to support himself and his family in a rather pricey area of London. If that's Devastating Financial Damage, then if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go Write a novel.

I'm talking about copyright violation. What I meant to say way "Let's think of someone selling his book. if someone ELSE would freely distribute copies"
Then Provide examples, and back your position with facts. If the copies are getting out for free, I don't see the difference in who is putting it out there for free. If say, You write a novel and put it out for free with the appropriate licensing, how would it be different financially if I took your book and put it online for free?

Valenthesial

  • Guest
Re: Copyright & Intellectual Property
« Reply #4 on: July 06, 2009, 12:43:38 pm »
-Let's think of someone selling his book. if someone would freely distribute copies of it on the net, the financial damages to the creator are devestating. Publishing can cause damages.
Since when? Corey Doctorow Releases ALL of his books for free on the net, as well as the sold print editions, and he makes enough to support himself and his family in a rather pricey area of London. If that's Devastating Financial Damage, then if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go Write a novel.

I'm talking about copyright violation. What I meant to say way "Let's think of someone selling his book. if someone ELSE would freely distribute copies"
Then Provide examples, and back your position with facts. If the copies are getting out for free, I don't see the difference in who is putting it out there for free. If say, You write a novel and put it out for free with the appropriate licensing, how would it be different financially if I took your book and put it online for free?

"Let's think of someone selling his book"
This is person A. let's color him GREEN.
He makes his living by SELLING books he wrote. he doesn't make it as a donation to society or by publishing them freely on the web and living on advertisement. Think J. K. Rowling writing and selling harry potter.
.


"if someone ELSE would freely distribute copies"
This is person B. He is copying the book, and publishing it freely on the web for everyone to read, or maybe even printing the book and making physical copies entirely for free or for material costs only.

Person B is the one in question. Person A is the creator that might be offended.
Is person B committing a crime?, is he doing something morally wrong? is what he a Robin Hood doing a service to society but going to go to jail over it?

Does this clarify what I've meant?  ;)

The subject REALLY isn't about a person who chooses to publish HIS own materials and have alternative non conventional ways to make profit, as this is definitely not related to copyright discussion but rather marketing technics?

"Then Provide examples, and back your position with facts."
I'm starting a discussion, not publishing an article I'm afraid. I gave 2 reasoning of why I think that way, and from there on you can give examples that contradict my reasoning, thus making a discussion (Which can easily lead to me changing/adjusting my claims towards the cases you've suggested. I didn't write anything set in stone here except when I've quoted written rules)

"If say, You write a novel and put it out for free with the appropriate licensing, how would it be different financially if I took your book and put it online for free?"
Ummm. if for example I would have posted your free novel on an explicit pornographic website, and you happen to be religious (and/or the book states a clearly religious and sexually-naive point of view) you might be offended.
The point is that you as the creator should have the right to decide where you publish it, to which target audience etc (unless you gave me specifically the right or giving everyone the right by licensing it PUBLICLY free for use, like the GNU license for instance)
« Last Edit: July 06, 2009, 01:06:02 pm by Valenthesial »

charles

  • Moderator
  • Harem Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 3603
  • LAWNMOWER MASACRE
    • MSN Messenger - charles_wilkinson@hotmail.com
    • View Profile
    • google profile
    • Email
Re: Copyright & Intellectual Property
« Reply #5 on: July 06, 2009, 01:13:54 pm »
Let's take Flipside for example.  Most of it is available free on the web and Brion manages to make a little money on it thanks to book sales with some exclusive content, advertising and now T-Shirts.

If someone is either creating a bittorrent of the online content for other's to download or mirroring the site's content to distribute it from their own website then they are essentially stealing Brion's customers and preventing him from keeping up the web statistics on his own site to attract advertising.  Now imagine they're printing the material and giving it away.  Fair enough it doesn't have the exclusive content, but it could still be diverting book sales that Brion would otherwise get.

Fair enough, the person might not be charged or go to jail over it.  The owner can just politely ask them to stop it and simply link people to the owner's online content rather than distribute it seperately.  But if the person refuses, then yeah, the owner has every right to take harsher action.

It's all a matter of being polite and getting the owner's permission really.
CLAN OF THE CATS IS MAKING A COMEBACK! JUNE 8th.  BE THERE!

Shay

  • Collared Pet
  • *
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Re: Copyright & Intellectual Property
« Reply #6 on: July 06, 2009, 01:37:15 pm »
Quote
4. "There are certain cases/usages in which copyrights should not grant the creator full control over his artwork."

Reasoning:
- Without fair-use laws, it would have been impossible to criticise let's say a movie without the creator's agreement. this would have let to a rather one sided critics.
- Once an artwork is published to the world (by the creator! not by deceptive means) it is by some part belongs to the audience. The audience have the freedom to express their opinions on it (be them good or bad) and academics have the right to research it as part of art.
- The whole reasoning behind Copyright is balancing the defending the artist's rights of ownership against the very basic right of free speech. If there is no damage inflicted upon the artist (no damage at all, not just purely financial), so goes his justification to prevent others from copying/modifying/speaking their minds on it (you are basically free to do everything as long as you do not trample on anyone else's rights).


Um, I don't quite agree with that. There's quite a difference between critiquing a work, and copying or modifying it. Just because there's no financial damage, or even damage when it comes to reputation etc. doesn't mean that it's okay to modify a work without the artist's full and informed consent beforehand. Whether you're taking something out, or adding something in, changing it a little bit or modifying it completely, it's still doing something possibly unwanted to artwork that was ( presumably )  worked very hard on.

Critiques are supported by the right of free speech, in that if someone says something bad or good about something, it's in their right to do so. However, it isn't anyone's right to modify something, anything, that doesn't belong to them.

Really, I don't see how critiquing and modifying are anywhere near the same thing.

Churba

  • Passion Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 1429
  • The Fresh Prince of Leeds.
    • View Profile
Re: Copyright & Intellectual Property
« Reply #7 on: July 06, 2009, 02:14:12 pm »
-Let's think of someone selling his book. if someone would freely distribute copies of it on the net, the financial damages to the creator are devestating. Publishing can cause damages.
Since when? Corey Doctorow Releases ALL of his books for free on the net, as well as the sold print editions, and he makes enough to support himself and his family in a rather pricey area of London. If that's Devastating Financial Damage, then if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go Write a novel.

I'm talking about copyright violation. What I meant to say way "Let's think of someone selling his book. if someone ELSE would freely distribute copies"
Then Provide examples, and back your position with facts. If the copies are getting out for free, I don't see the difference in who is putting it out there for free. If say, You write a novel and put it out for free with the appropriate licensing, how would it be different financially if I took your book and put it online for free?

"Let's think of someone selling his book"
This is person A. let's color him GREEN.
He makes his living by SELLING books he wrote. he doesn't make it as a donation to society or by publishing them freely on the web and living on advertisement. Think J. K. Rowling writing and selling harry potter.
.


"if someone ELSE would freely distribute copies"
This is person B. He is copying the book, and publishing it freely on the web for everyone to read, or maybe even printing the book and making physical copies entirely for free or for material costs only.

Person B is the one in question. Person A is the creator that might be offended.
Is person B committing a crime?, is he doing something morally wrong? is what he a Robin Hood doing a service to society but going to go to jail over it?

Does this clarify what I've meant?  ;)

The subject REALLY isn't about a person who chooses to publish HIS own materials and have alternative non conventional ways to make profit, as this is definitely not related to copyright discussion but rather marketing technics?

"Then Provide examples, and back your position with facts."
I'm starting a discussion, not publishing an article I'm afraid. I gave 2 reasoning of why I think that way, and from there on you can give examples that contradict my reasoning, thus making a discussion (Which can easily lead to me changing/adjusting my claims towards the cases you've suggested. I didn't write anything set in stone here except when I've quoted written rules)

"If say, You write a novel and put it out for free with the appropriate licensing, how would it be different financially if I took your book and put it online for free?"
Ummm. if for example I would have posted your free novel on an explicit pornographic website, and you happen to be religious (and/or the book states a clearly religious and sexually-naive point of view) you might be offended.
The point is that you as the creator should have the right to decide where you publish it, to which target audience etc (unless you gave me specifically the right or giving everyone the right by licensing it PUBLICLY free for use, like the GNU license for instance)

You didn't answer the question. You have a good point about it possibly offending the Author, but being offended doesn't take dollars out of your pocket. You have still not answered how it would have any differing financial effects, and it was your claim about the "devastating" financial effect that I took issue with.

Let Me provide you with an example.

Mr Blue Has no money, and cannot afford to buy books, but he absolutely loves Mr Taupe's books. He finds a copy of Mr Taupe's novel "Living Red" online, downloads it, and reads it. Did Mr Taupe lose money? No, because Mr Blue had no money to give for the book. However, it has increased the chance that Mr Blue will buy the book, because when he has the liquid assets to buy the book, he most likely will because he enjoyed it.

Mr Taupe also gains the business of Mrs Red, who has a little money, but not much, and also downloads the book, and really enjoys it, and since she enjoys it, there has a far greater chance that she will buy the book rather than risking her hard-earned dollars on a book she might not like.

Mr Taupe may also gain money, if he's smart, by enabling donations - For example, if Mr Blue likes the book, instead of buying another copy, he may just want to give Mr taupe what he thinks the book was worth. Mr Taupe is still getting money he would have not otherwise got.

Also, I'd like to note, this position is comparable to the situation of secondhand bookstores. A secondhand bookstore doesn't give any of the money they make back to the author. The author makes nothing from that. Are secondhand bookstores also Financially disastrous? What about programs such as Bookcrossing, where people leave books they no longer want out for people to pick up for free? How about people sharing books at book-clubs?

If you're going to argue that Piracy is financially disastrous, you also have to argue that every other distribution method where the artist doesn't get a slice of the cash is also equally Financially disastrous, if not more so, because they are legal and far more commonplace.

Is breaking copyright illegal? Yes.
Is it, as you said, Financially Disastrous? No.

charles

  • Moderator
  • Harem Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 3603
  • LAWNMOWER MASACRE
    • MSN Messenger - charles_wilkinson@hotmail.com
    • View Profile
    • google profile
    • Email
Re: Copyright & Intellectual Property
« Reply #8 on: July 06, 2009, 02:59:42 pm »
On the reverse, Mr Blue may never buy the book after getting it for free.  But if Mr Blue couldn't get the book for free, he may one day save up for it and get it then, or a library may by extra coppies of the book because Mr Blue has become another customer to borrow it and increased the demand for the book in the eyes of the library.

The reality is that Mr. Red, Mr. Green and Mr. Orange can all afford the book but when they can get it for free, they'll skip forking out any money.  Even when it's only $1 or something, online, they'll just find someone distributing it for free without permission and keep their dollar.  Good old Human greed.

I remember reading some years back that a particularly crappy game won the prestigue as the most sold game and/or highest profit margin that year.  People wondered why the hell the game was so popular when reviewers all thought it not much past 2 stars and all the gamers who played it claimed it was less than average, but then it became apparent.  The game was ultra secure (for the time) with preventing copies from being easily made, requiring the manual for key codes and a number of other things.  People bought more copies because it couldn't be cracked or distributed illegally with any ease.
CLAN OF THE CATS IS MAKING A COMEBACK! JUNE 8th.  BE THERE!

Valenthesial

  • Guest
Re: Copyright & Intellectual Property
« Reply #9 on: July 06, 2009, 03:05:05 pm »
Quote
4. "There are certain cases/usages in which copyrights should not grant the creator full control over his artwork."

Reasoning:
- Without fair-use laws, it would have been impossible to criticise let's say a movie without the creator's agreement. this would have let to a rather one sided critics.
- Once an artwork is published to the world (by the creator! not by deceptive means) it is by some part belongs to the audience. The audience have the freedom to express their opinions on it (be them good or bad) and academics have the right to research it as part of art.
- The whole reasoning behind Copyright is balancing the defending the artist's rights of ownership against the very basic right of free speech. If there is no damage inflicted upon the artist (no damage at all, not just purely financial), so goes his justification to prevent others from copying/modifying/speaking their minds on it (you are basically free to do everything as long as you do not trample on anyone else's rights).


Um, I don't quite agree with that. There's quite a difference between critiquing a work, and copying or modifying it. Just because there's no financial damage, or even damage when it comes to reputation etc. doesn't mean that it's okay to modify a work without the artist's full and informed consent beforehand. Whether you're taking something out, or adding something in, changing it a little bit or modifying it completely, it's still doing something possibly unwanted to artwork that was ( presumably )  worked very hard on.

Critiques are supported by the right of free speech, in that if someone says something bad or good about something, it's in their right to do so. However, it isn't anyone's right to modify something, anything, that doesn't belong to them.

Really, I don't see how critiquing and modifying are anywhere near the same thing.

Criticism taken to the extreme is parody. When someone want to include a scene or two, or even a full length movie parodying the movie "scream" he does not need the permission of the authors of "scream". This one is fully anchored in USA and European laws.

Another form of modifying art is fan-fiction. Look up for the words fan-fic along with startrek, starwars or any other extremely famous fictional universe and you'll find zillions of fan-fics. each of them is a full violation of character copyright laws as they are written today. Did those fans do it with the author's permissions? unlikely. would the author bother with answering 2 million messages per day regarding it? also unlikely.
Are they doing something morally wrong? My opinion is that they aren't.
By publishing something to the general audience and it having millions of viewers to the point of affecting the culture, some of the "rights" of that artist are becoming public right and part of culture. Most of those so called fan-fics are done as an adoration of the original art, and one can claim that their spreading can also raise the longevity of the original art's popularity (as they are allowing continuations and extra attention directed to that artwork).

Also: not causing damage = legal, is the basic reasoning behind laws in democratic countries. You might want to claim that the artist might suffer anguish due to his work being abused, (and anguish has been known to be compensated for on various occasions slander for instance) but if he doesn't suffer anything or if his suffering is lower than the suffering caused by preventing free speech - he have no claim.

Churba

  • Passion Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 1429
  • The Fresh Prince of Leeds.
    • View Profile
Re: Copyright & Intellectual Property
« Reply #10 on: July 06, 2009, 03:21:45 pm »
and you'll find zillions of fan-fics.
And most often, immediately wish you hadn't.

Valenthesial

  • Guest
Re: Copyright & Intellectual Property
« Reply #11 on: July 06, 2009, 03:24:39 pm »
Churba, you are indeed giving some interesting arguments!

However, have you checked the facts beforehand like you have asked me to? :)
I might be a really really evil, corrupted and bad person as I tend to download things illegally (and I think it MAYBE happened to me once ever that I bought something that I already had. if I'm already done using it or already have it, I fail to go and pay high sums of money over it).

Optimistically, I might be unique and most other pirates appreciate artwork enough to retroactively pay for them, but somehow I find this as a weak claim. It happens too rarely.

Let me give you an example from the computer gaming industry.

Once upon a time, there was an era that copying computer games required compressing with command line arj on dos command line, copying to multiple diskettes and was rather uncomfortable. Many people bought computer games and the companies were compensated.

Later on, (after the BBS era) with the advancement of the internet and better methods of burning cd-roms and dvds, many well known computer gaming companies just crushed and got bought by larger companies.
Why would I base this upon piracy you ask? perhaps there was something more interesting on tv at that time or the companies just failed to do smart economical decisions?
Simple, let's base it upon research and facts. Heard of diablo? a Blizzard Entertainment game. Blizzard sold many copies of this popular game. they also supplied free online support on their servers for multiplayer. This gave them a complete and total shock:
The number of players was over x20 of the amount of copies that they have SOLD. How could this be they asked themselves in terror? simple. For every 1 copy they sold, there were 19 pirated copies, that nobody EVER paid for.
The servers were overflooded, and the company had to spend even more money to support the freeloaders, as they could not have dictated who was a legal and who was an illegal user!

You can claim that they still had profit, that they could have reduced the prices and have more customers thus getting paid more than they did and even that without selling it through various middlemen, computer stores, local publishers etc etc they could have offered it directly on the web at 1/3 of the price and have the SAME cut for themselves. (On those claims I might agree with you!)
But I cannot agree with your claim that you do not LOSE profit over someone who uses your software/art without paying when you live by SELLING it! At least not in the common scenario!

What are computer companies doing on our current era you might ask? they found a NEW and profound method to extract money out of their customers and avoid piracy!
How you ask? simple, it's called MMO - Massive Multiplay Online. You have to play on their server by the very nature of the game, thus you never have their code and cannot copy it as well as you pay a monthly fee / pay per use / pay for virtual items&services rather than paying for the game software itself.

Brilliant, isn't it?
Usually though, the one losing from this arrangement is the customer, as nowday gaming is costing a fortune more than it had cost in the past.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2009, 03:27:35 pm by Valenthesial »

Valenthesial

  • Guest
Re: Copyright & Intellectual Property
« Reply #12 on: July 06, 2009, 03:26:38 pm »
and you'll find zillions of fan-fics.
And most often, immediately wish you hadn't.

Rofl. Agreed. (I've done the mistake of trying to read one or two of those at the time)

The quality is mostly horrible, but if the person writing them at the very least enjoyed it (even if nobody sane in the world except him ever did) was it such a bad thing? was the creator of the original work damaged by it?

Churba

  • Passion Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 1429
  • The Fresh Prince of Leeds.
    • View Profile
Re: Copyright & Intellectual Property
« Reply #13 on: July 06, 2009, 03:55:06 pm »
Churba, you are indeed giving some interesting arguments!
Thank you, and of course, your arguments are the flipside of the same coin - because you have some who will buy later, and some who will never buy, both are equally correct.

Copyright law is very dubious, because where do you draw the line, and why?
Do you draw it at pirates because it's theft and the Author doesn't see any money?
 But then how do you justify second sale, where the author doesn't see a penny? After all, piracy involves a previous purchase by SOMEONE so that they can get the media, and so does second sale, the only difference being that piracy is free, and Second sale is lining someone's pockets.
The issue is how to enforce copyright law without hurting anyone. One possible path is creative commons - again taking Doctorow as an example, It's almost unheard of to have a pirate copy of his books, because it's damn near impossible with him giving it away entirely for free, however, he still makes enough money from it to support himself very well.

CrystalDragonSpaceMarine

  • Eternal Lover
  • *****
  • Posts: 2446
  • Show me your enemies.
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Copyright & Intellectual Property
« Reply #14 on: July 06, 2009, 04:07:00 pm »
Answer: Piracy of movies/books/music/whatever is here to stay and there's no way to fix it.
So creators may as well deal with it.
Sure, it's wrong, it causes damage, but what are you really going to do?


I'll say though, the library/secondhand bookstore/give it to a friend argument is really poor. You are paying for a copy. That copy was paid for, and now you can give it to someone else. But now you don't have it any more, and can't reread it again. And you can only pass it on to one person at a time.

With online downloads, you can keep it for yourself, and distribute it to thousands of people easily. That's where the problem is.

Churba

  • Passion Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 1429
  • The Fresh Prince of Leeds.
    • View Profile
Re: Copyright & Intellectual Property
« Reply #15 on: July 06, 2009, 05:15:03 pm »
Answer: Piracy of movies/books/music/whatever is here to stay and there's no way to fix it.
So creators may as well deal with it.
Sure, it's wrong, it causes damage, but what are you really going to do?


I'll say though, the library/secondhand bookstore/give it to a friend argument is really poor. You are paying for a copy. That copy was paid for, and now you can give it to someone else. But now you don't have it any more, and can't reread it again. And you can only pass it on to one person at a time.

With online downloads, you can keep it for yourself, and distribute it to thousands of people easily. That's where the problem is.
Your argument is half again as flawed.
1)There is not just a single person buying a copy and it gets distributed to everyone, there are hundreds upon hundreds of pirates who are buying the album and putting it out there.

2)So, what you're saying is that the secondary Sale market is perfectly fine because it's essentially identical to piracy, just less efficient and you have to lose use of the media in the process?

3)Libraries are fine, as is Personal loaning, but again, you assume too much. You say the problem is that you can distribute the book to thousands of people easily, but what If I take a book out from the library, and make a copy of it(Trivial, if you have half a brain in your head), then return it, how is that any different from mass digital distribution, aside from the fact that it's slower and far less efficient?
If it's not, Then does that mean that piracy is acceptable, as long as you're not efficient about it?

4)The point "You don't have it anymore, and can't read it again" is weak as a lame kitten. Again, it's trivial to make a copy of most media. What if you copy it before you give it away, or you loan it to your mate, who copies it, and gives it back? You now have two copies, and a broken argument.

5)If you are so convinced that the Second Sale argument is poor, please point out any point other than the initial sale where the author makes money from it? Or maybe with libraries, or giveaway programs? Also, please do not forget the above point, where Pirates have to purchase the work initially to pirate it, that libraries and second sale outlets are far more prolific than book piracy?

6)So, according to your argument, it's acceptable to give away the media to anyone else you like, for any price you like, as long as you lose the ability to view the media in the first place. So, does that mean that anyone with either perfect recall is Pirating every piece of media that they sell or give away? Or that someone who has memorized a single work who gives it away has just pirated that work?

7)Let's follow your argument in parallel to piracy
Buy book > copy book > Give book away to people for free, many download and read it
Buy book > Give book to friend for free/sell it to a second sale outlet > Book is either passed on or sold again, down the chain
Please point out in the above example where the author benefits more from Second sale than piracy, considering that my point is not that piracy is right or that second sale is piracy, but that it is of no greater harm to the author than second sale. Remember, to the author, the speed of this is irrelevant, only the benefit he or she gains.

CrystalDragonSpaceMarine

  • Eternal Lover
  • *****
  • Posts: 2446
  • Show me your enemies.
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Copyright & Intellectual Property
« Reply #16 on: July 06, 2009, 06:02:45 pm »
Your argument is half again as flawed.
1)There is not just a single person buying a copy and it gets distributed to everyone, there are hundreds upon hundreds of pirates who are buying the album and putting it out there.

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter if there are hundreds and hundreds distributing it, what matters it that all the people it is being distributed to are getting their own personal copy for nothing.

Quote
2)So, what you're saying is that the secondary Sale market is perfectly fine because it's essentially identical to piracy, just less efficient and you have to lose use of the media in the process?

The keyword here is copyright. You buy a copy of a book. What happens to that book after it's been sold by the publisher doesn't matter. But, if you were to make additional copies of that book, that is illegal, as it is not within your rights to do so.

Quote
3)Libraries are fine, as is Personal loaning, but again, you assume too much. You say the problem is that you can distribute the book to thousands of people easily, but what If I take a book out from the library, and make a copy of it(Trivial, if you have half a brain in your head), then return it, how is that any different from mass digital distribution, aside from the fact that it's slower and far less efficient?
If it's not, Then does that mean that piracy is acceptable, as long as you're not efficient about it?

No, that's the same thing. The illegal part isn't that you are "reading a book for free", it's that you are getting a copy of that book for free that wasn't made by the publishers who have the rights to make copies of it.

Quote
4)The point "You don't have it anymore, and can't read it again" is weak as a lame kitten. Again, it's trivial to make a copy of most media. What if you copy it before you give it away, or you loan it to your mate, who copies it, and gives it back? You now have two copies, and a broken argument.

And making that copy is illegal. I said that.

Quote
5)If you are so convinced that the Second Sale argument is poor, please point out any point other than the initial sale where the author makes money from it? Or maybe with libraries, or giveaway programs? Also, please do not forget the above point, where Pirates have to purchase the work initially to pirate it, that libraries and second sale outlets are far more prolific than book piracy?

This isn't about making money every time something is sold. I said that.

Quote
6)So, according to your argument, it's acceptable to give away the media to anyone else you like, for any price you like, as long as you lose the ability to view the media in the first place. So, does that mean that anyone with either perfect recall is Pirating every piece of media that they sell or give away? Or that someone who has memorized a single work who gives it away has just pirated that work?

As long as you lose your copy of it. As I said, it's not that "you have information in your brain that you didn't pay for", it's that you "possess a copy of information created to sold", whether in the form of a book, or cd, or a data file. You can do with that anything that you want. Except copy it.

Quote
7)Let's follow your argument in parallel to piracy
Buy book > copy book > Give book away to people for free, many download and read it
Buy book > Give book to friend for free/sell it to a second sale outlet > Book is either passed on or sold again, down the chain
Please point out in the above example where the author benefits more from Second sale than piracy, considering that my point is not that piracy is right or that second sale is piracy, but that it is of no greater harm to the author than second sale. Remember, to the author, the speed of this is irrelevant, only the benefit he or she gains.

I'm not trying to say one way or the other is more beneficial to the author, I'm saying the 'copy' step is what violates the copyright law.

That's why those laws need to be rethought so creative industries can adapt to that fact that information is now ridiculously easy to copy.


Churba

  • Passion Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 1429
  • The Fresh Prince of Leeds.
    • View Profile
Re: Copyright & Intellectual Property
« Reply #17 on: July 06, 2009, 07:32:06 pm »
Look, You're still missing the point. I don't give a damn if Copyright is right, wrong, indifferent, or if every time you copy media illegally, Peter Sunde kills a kitten. My point is that the "Devastating financial loss" argument is Provably false - Again, I point to Doctorow, who Gives his books away for free on the net, and actively encourages people to get his books this way makes enough money off his books for himself and his family to live probably more comfortably than any of you, and regularly flies all over the world on top of that.
If the financial loss from Piracy is so great, then how is this possible?

Hell, even without that example, if the loss is so devastating, How the hell do we even still have rich recording artists and movie stars?

Yeah, the RIAA and the MPAA have been dying for years now - but that's not piracy. That's because A) they're so behind the times, they make Edison's original Phonograph look futuristic, and B)they have this nasty habit of treating their customers like criminals, and customers don't tend to like that - just for one example, home DVDs with the unskippable anti-piracy warnings. Pirates? They cut those out, because they're irritating, meaning the only people seeing them are people who already either legitimately own the movie or are using the movie perfectly legitimately(Ie, Being loaned the movie).

They're also among the companies who are trying to take away your rights to use media you have purchased however you like. How many times recently have we seen them try to do things like preventing you from loaning things to your friends with such technologies DRM? Or maybe you remember how Spore could only be installed a certain number of times, no matter who owned the computers it was installed on, and after that you had to purchase Extra installs from the makers of the game?

CrystalDragonSpaceMarine

  • Eternal Lover
  • *****
  • Posts: 2446
  • Show me your enemies.
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Copyright & Intellectual Property
« Reply #18 on: July 06, 2009, 07:50:19 pm »
Look, You're still missing the point. I don't give a damn if Copyright is right, wrong, indifferent, or if every time you copy media illegally, Peter Sunde kills a kitten. My point is that the "Devastating financial loss" argument is Provably false

I never said anything about 'devastating financial loss'. I was merely stating that the comparison to downloading a free digital copy to checking a book out from the library is innaccurate. I wasn't making any commentary on whether it's right, wrong, or whatever effects it has/doesn't have on the industry.

charles

  • Moderator
  • Harem Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 3603
  • LAWNMOWER MASACRE
    • MSN Messenger - charles_wilkinson@hotmail.com
    • View Profile
    • google profile
    • Email
Re: Copyright & Intellectual Property
« Reply #19 on: July 06, 2009, 08:10:16 pm »
"Devastating Financial Loss" is probably too harsh but I'd still call it Significant financial loss if we take my example of that crappy game with extreme anti-pirate security that was the highest earner in a year as an example.  It shows that there are many people out there who DO have the means to pay for these things and are even willing to do so PROVIDED that they can't find or obtain a free copy with ease.

But as you say, it's here and no matter how hard they prosecute, people are still going to do it (although I agree that every effort should still be made to stop pirating and illegal distribution).

They had an idea a while back to put advertisements into games, movies and even books to allow them to be distributed cheaply or even for free, while obtaining a revenue from advertisers (much like Brion does with ProjectWonderful).  Unfortunately the crackers/pirates went that extra mile and you found versions coming out with the advertisements removed.

The best solution I've seen start to come out now has been services rather than purchases.  So for games you have games which link to MMORPG sites around the world which charge a monthly fee for use.  With Music, they were trying the $1/song thing at first but now some sites have started just charging a monthly subscription with the benefit of unlimited downloads of all the latest songs and people are really paying for this because they know they can get a quality copy of any new song without having to fork out extra money at the time, as long as they've paid their subscription to the site.  There's no real choice in the MMORPG instance unless you're a fairly good hacker, but I was surprised to hear the music site is working so well.  I can only guess it's a mentality thing, sort of like "all you can eat" since you're not thinking of the cost for each item you take.

I'm not aware of a book service like this, or even a movie one (unless you count cable) but I'd bet it could work just as well.
CLAN OF THE CATS IS MAKING A COMEBACK! JUNE 8th.  BE THERE!

Churba

  • Passion Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 1429
  • The Fresh Prince of Leeds.
    • View Profile
Re: Copyright & Intellectual Property
« Reply #20 on: July 07, 2009, 05:44:24 am »
Look, You're still missing the point. I don't give a damn if Copyright is right, wrong, indifferent, or if every time you copy media illegally, Peter Sunde kills a kitten. My point is that the "Devastating financial loss" argument is Provably false

I never said anything about 'devastating financial loss'. I was merely stating that the comparison to downloading a free digital copy to checking a book out from the library is innaccurate. I wasn't making any commentary on whether it's right, wrong, or whatever effects it has/doesn't have on the industry.

No, you didn't. Valen Did, however, and you came in after I started arguing with him. Sorry for the confusion.

"Devastating Financial Loss" is probably too harsh but I'd still call it Significant financial loss if we take my example of that crappy game with extreme anti-pirate security that was the highest earner in a year as an example.  It shows that there are many people out there who DO have the means to pay for these things and are even willing to do so PROVIDED that they can't find or obtain a free copy with ease.
However, on the other side of that coin, you have games that are pirated by those who can afford it because of absolutely insane copy protection - Spore, for example. You have to find the right balance between protecting your media, and restricting the rights of the purchaser.

charles

  • Moderator
  • Harem Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 3603
  • LAWNMOWER MASACRE
    • MSN Messenger - charles_wilkinson@hotmail.com
    • View Profile
    • google profile
    • Email
Re: Copyright & Intellectual Property
« Reply #21 on: July 07, 2009, 04:30:49 pm »
Spore isn't the one I was talking about.  I can't for the life of me remember what game it was but it was years before spore.

You may notice however that few reviewers gave the game more than one star and generally bad reviews, yet it topped all the sales charts.  Why?  Because of the security.  Granted it was broken eventually, but it was difficult to break and it was difficult to find those cracked copies so hundreds of less computer savy gamers suddenly found themselves buying the thing instead of grabbing a copy from their mate's disk.

Crappy game but thanks to obscene security, it topped sales charts everywhere and made the company a massive profit before dying out as a sale item unlike other games such as half-life or Warcraft which kept coming out with expansion sets because it was so popular.

Imagine a good game with obscene security...
CLAN OF THE CATS IS MAKING A COMEBACK! JUNE 8th.  BE THERE!

dg86

  • Slave Groupie
  • *
  • Posts: 47
    • View Profile
Re: Copyright & Intellectual Property
« Reply #22 on: October 30, 2009, 12:14:44 am »
IMO, copyright is old news.  Why?  Because of this thing, you know, those first three letters in front of any website.

www.

World Wide Web.

Know why an apple costs money?  Because by you consuming an apple, another person can't.
Know why everyone downloads music instead of buying CDs and the RIAA is dying?  Because by consuming a piece of music, I don't prevent anyone else from doing so.

It's simple supply and demand.  However, here's the catch: the moment you put something up on the internet, what is its supply?

INFINITY.

Therefore what is its price?

ZERO.

Q.E.D.

Churba

  • Passion Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 1429
  • The Fresh Prince of Leeds.
    • View Profile
Re: Copyright & Intellectual Property
« Reply #23 on: October 30, 2009, 01:04:24 am »
IMO, copyright is old news.  Why?  Because of this thing, you know, those first three letters in front of any website.
You're equating Copyright with Pricing, Distribution and piracy. This is your first(and rather a large) mistake. I know I've beaten him to death as an example, but Doctorow. He retains copyright of his works, but he gives them away for free. You can do whatever you want with them, within certain conditions (you must give attribution, you can't make money from it, and you must share your work if you make any derivative works under the same license) But he still retains creative control of his works.
Quote
Know why an apple costs money?  Because by you consuming an apple, another person can't.
Doesn't cost a damn thing if you pick it off a wild-growing tree. Just saying.
Quote
Know why everyone downloads music instead of buying CDs and the RIAA is dying?  Because by consuming a piece of music, I don't prevent anyone else from doing so.
You are making the same flawed assumption as the RIAA does. This is your second mistake.
It's not because of downloading that the RIAA and CDs are dying. It's because the RIAA are a dinosaur, massive, slow, and behind the times by a few million years, rather than evolving to suit the environment they're in. They don't want you to buy a track online for a ridiculously low price, or even download them for free in a legal fashion - They want you to buy a 30 dollar cd with 14 to 20 tracks on it, where they have a massive, massive profit margin on each. You only like three songs out of the 14? Too bad, they still get their $29.90 profit.

With digital downloads, you only like those three tracks, you only buy those three tracks, and they only make the 99 Cents that they price the track at.

It's part of why shitty fad bands have become such an industry, as well as Pop Idol and the like - because it's popular for a while, a ton of albums are bought at a premium, everybody gets rich. They sell for a while, then then vanish, and a new cycle starts.
They look at digital downloads, and they see a threatened business model, rather than a new and innovative distribution model.
They charged what the market would bear, but now that the market refuses to bear it, they don't want to stop charging the price they've grown very fond of.

Quote
It's simple supply and demand.  However, here's the catch: the moment you put something up on the internet, what is its supply?

INFINITY.

Therefore what is its price?

ZERO.
This is your third mistake, and also, a ridiculous example. The supply of work that you can give your job is not a finite resource, and it is therefore infinite. You don't suddenly lose your ability to do your job once you've achieved a certain amount of output. The worth of your labor is therefore Zero. Yet, you still demand to be paid. If you follow your own argument, why is this?

Quote
Q.E.D.
I do not think this means what you think it means.

dg86

  • Slave Groupie
  • *
  • Posts: 47
    • View Profile
Re: Copyright & Intellectual Property
« Reply #24 on: October 30, 2009, 07:20:06 pm »
I'm not talking about fixed costs (the supply and cost of your work), but rather, the marginal cost of producing another CD, or growing another apple (in fact, even picking an apple off of a tree and eating it has an opportunity cost--you could have sold it!).

What does it cost to produce another CD?  Nothing.  What does it cost to keep the servers running for one more download to get through?  Nothing.

As for "control" over your own work, well, yes, if you made something, you should be able to keep your name on it.  But charging people for something that is intrinsically worthless, because there's an unlimited supply of it?  No, I disagree.

Basically, if you've ever read Chris Anderson's book called "Free: the past and future of a radical price", you'll understand what I'm getting at.

And I know what QED means.  It means Quod Erat Demonstradum, or if you want another acronym in English, "quite enough done".

Churba

  • Passion Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 1429
  • The Fresh Prince of Leeds.
    • View Profile
Re: Copyright & Intellectual Property
« Reply #25 on: October 30, 2009, 09:04:10 pm »
I'm not talking about fixed costs (the supply and cost of your work), but rather, the marginal cost of producing another CD, or growing another apple (in fact, even picking an apple off of a tree and eating it has an opportunity cost--you could have sold it!).
No, You made a flawed example, and I illustrated it with an equally flawed parallel example.

Just because something is theoretically infinite in supply doesn't mean that it has no cost - To use a Song for an example, Yes, As soon as you start distributing a Digital copy, You have a theoretically infinite supply, however, that doesn't mean that you didn't have to pay for the studio time, mastering, production, salaries of the people who worked on it, advertising and marketing, so on, so fourth. Yeah, making copies might not cost you anything, but producing the original is very, very expensive, and an infinite supply does not recoup your costs.

Quote
What does it cost to produce another CD?  Nothing.
It's either a marginal cost or "Nothing", you can't have it both ways. And of course, remember that a marginal cost still adds up when you're producing millions upon millions of copies - lots of albums go Gold and Platinum nowdays, even multi-platinum.
Quote
What does it cost to keep the servers running for one more download to get through?  Nothing.
Well, that depends on what you're powering your servers with, and of course, how much you're paying for bandwidth.

Quote
As for "control" over your own work, well, yes, if you made something, you should be able to keep your name on it.  But charging people for something that is intrinsically worthless, because there's an unlimited supply of it?  No, I disagree.
But your initial point was that Copyright is old news, Not that charging for use or consumption of your copyrights is old news.
After all, if you create something that you control, don't you have as much right to recoup the cost of creating it as you do to give it away for free?

But that aside, Copyright |= Charging for your properties. Also, As I pointed out, something isn't intrinsically worthless just because there is an unlimited supply of it - There is an unlimited supply of human life - After all, just about anyone can reproduce - yet, we still value it extremely highly.

So, Support your stated position, or abandon it and take up a new one - but Your argument that Copyright is untenable because digital distribution means you have infinite copies on hand is absolutely doomed to fail.

Quote
Basically, if you've ever read Chris Anderson's book called "Free: the past and future of a radical price", you'll understand what I'm getting at.
I haven't, but I've hunted down a copy of the book, and I'm reading it now.

Quote
And I know what QED means.  It means Quod Erat Demonstradum, or if you want another acronym in English, "quite enough done".
When I was a kid, I thought it stood for Quietly End Discussion. Also, I should note that quod erat demonstrandum shouldn't be capitalized, however, I will Say that the latin translates to "which was to be demonstrated", and is generally used to denote that the last statement before the abbreviation is the completion of  a Mathematical or Philosophical proof.

In other words, Congrats, you know what the acronym stands for(Or at least, you can use google), but you still used it completely incorrectly, though in your favor, in such a way that reminded me of DNA's famous "Babel Fish destroys God" joke, which also used it incorrectly, but in a much more amusing fashion.

dg86

  • Slave Groupie
  • *
  • Posts: 47
    • View Profile
Re: Copyright & Intellectual Property
« Reply #26 on: October 31, 2009, 08:33:09 am »
Well, see, I guess I mistakenly interpreted copyright as "creating artificial scarcity in order to be paid for something worthless" rather than "made by XYZ".

Yes, keeping a server running costs something per month.  However, as you are now reading in Chris Anderson's book, that price is so tiny--so close to zero, that it's effectively nothing.

As for studio time, think about it this way: if artists can give away their music for free, they are essentially getting free advertising in the form of file-sharing, and then they become well-known enough to sell out concerts.

Churba

  • Passion Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 1429
  • The Fresh Prince of Leeds.
    • View Profile
Re: Copyright & Intellectual Property
« Reply #27 on: October 31, 2009, 11:42:24 am »
Well, see, I guess I mistakenly interpreted copyright as "creating artificial scarcity in order to be paid for something worthless" rather than "made by XYZ".
Yep. It's cool, you're far from the only one to do it.

Quote
Yes, keeping a server running costs something per month.  However, as you are now reading in Chris Anderson's book, that price is so tiny--so close to zero, that it's effectively nothing.
The price comes in when you get to bandwidth, not power. For example, Leo Laporte of the TWIT network pays something in the region of 11 grand a month in bandwidth costs. And of course, this escalates the more popular something is.

Quote
As for studio time, think about it this way: if artists can give away their music for free, they are essentially getting free advertising in the form of file-sharing, and then they become well-known enough to sell out concerts.
This is how MC Frontalot makes his money - gives away most of his music for free, but people buy concert tickets, CDs, Merch, things like that.  The problem is that the Music companies don't see this as Making money, they see it as making extra money on top of the music. Fix that, save the industry.

akashayi

  • Guest
Re: Copyright & Intellectual Property
« Reply #28 on: October 31, 2009, 11:50:47 am »
Or, you know, instead of saving the industry... watch an anachronistic, greedy industry fall while there is a rise of artists who produce independently. </dream>

Churba

  • Passion Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 1429
  • The Fresh Prince of Leeds.
    • View Profile
Re: Copyright & Intellectual Property
« Reply #29 on: October 31, 2009, 01:12:17 pm »
Or, you know, instead of saving the industry... watch an anachronistic, greedy industry fall while there is a rise of artists who produce independently. </dream>
That's exactly how saving the industry should go.