Piracy

[Oldtimer]

Originally Posted by Mercutio01

They are recipients of an illegally copied work, and it doesn't matter one whit to me that they can attribute it to me. That attribution does me no good when the next electric bill comes in. That's what I'm arguing against.

We all want more money.

Personally (and as a creator of written works) I subscribe fully to the scandinavian tradition of creator rights - attrbiution, the right to be honored as the creator of one's work. I do think the anglo-saxon invention of copyright is weird thing. They got joined at the hip with the Berne Convention in 1886, but in this day and age copyright has become the albatross around our society's collective neck.

The idea that a creator has some sort of "moral right" to get paid for every copy made, even when someone else does the work of copying it, is totally alien to me. Of course we all wish we had more money, but there is absolutely no reason to have separate laws for one particular group of people. Everyone else either does work-for-hire or produce some physical product or service that can be sold.

[Umbran]

Originally Posted by Majoru Oakheart

I still believe there is. It is true that a physical item's value can be so low that it becomes pointless to own it or try to sell it, but it still does have SOME value.

I'm not at all convinced that this is the case. Imagine that all people in the world die. Do physical objects still have value?

Value cannot be intrinsic to the item for one very simple reason - "value" is a human concept. Without humans, there is no "value". That means the value comes from the people, not the object.

[xechnao]

Originally Posted by Umbran

I'm not at all convinced that this is the case. Imagine that all people in the world die. Do physical objects still have value?

Value cannot be intrinsic to the item for one very simple reason - "value" is a human concept. Without humans, there is no "value". That means the value comes from the people, not the object.

When we humans speak of objects we speak of something that can be exchanged. This need not be something stable. Labor has value for example. But humans will not work without some solid material values: food for example. So even if you give them all the gold of the world without food they will not work for you.

[Majoru Oakheart]

Originally Posted by Umbran

Value cannot be intrinsic to the item for one very simple reason - "value" is a human concept. Without humans, there is no "value". That means the value comes from the people, not the object.

Alright, then let's say that physical objects simply have more uses to humans by being physical objects than non-physical objects. So, because of the nature of our physical existence, a rock has more value than a txt file with "the sky is blue" written in it.

I agree that the value is not intrinsic to the object. But the rest of what I said I stick by. Physical objects still have more value to humans.

[Mercutio01]

Originally Posted by Oldtimer

Personally (and as a creator of written works) I subscribe fully to the scandinavian tradition of creator rights - attrbiution, the right to be honored as the creator of one's work. ... The idea that a creator has some sort of "moral right" to get paid for every copy made, even when someone else does the work of copying it, is totally alien to me.

What do you do for a living? Do you create written work for the sheer hell of it and then release it into space?

Of course we all wish we had more money, but there is absolutely no reason to have separate laws for one particular group of people. Everyone else either does work-for-hire or produce some physical product or service that can be sold.

There isn't a separate law for a particular group of people. It's for any person anywhere who creates anything. Writers do work-for-hire, and part of the "hiring" is royalties on works sold. Stephen King gets an advance on his novels, but he gets far more in the royalty checks from the number of product copies sold.

Actors are the same. They get paid to be in the movie, and many of them also take a share in the profits.

Also - tell me how a book is NOT a physical product that can be sold. You just shot your own argument in the foot.

So your arguments are about greed.

Greed? No. Expecting to be fairly paid for work, absolutely.

If you've finished all labor on a project, there is no fundamental reason you should be rewarded in perpetuity for already completed projects.

Except that writers *don't get paid while doing the labor* so that argument's a non-starter. And what do you do for a living? (EDIT - I don't mean that as a way to start a flame. I mean it because if you get a salary, you get paid for already completed projects all the time. This is true even for hourly wage earners. Unless you are a manual laborer who gets paid a set amount for a specific job accomplishment [you packaged 4000 VCRs today at 10 cents a VCR], you get paid for your past work, present work, and future work.)

There is a lot of reason to make an artificial construct to encourage creative works, but no, its not fundamental.

No, it's not. I'd write poetry regardless. However, I can't do that *as my full-time occupation* if I don't make enough money from it.

You are effectively telling artists that they shouldn't be entitled to make a living at their art. Is that correct? You want them to make art for you, but you think they shouldn't be able to sell it?

[JohnRTroy]

There isn't a separate law for a particular group of people. It's for any person anywhere who creates anything. Writers do work-for-hire, and part of the "hiring" is royalties on works sold. Stephen King gets an advance on his novels, but he gets far more in the royalty checks from the number of product copies sold.

Actors are the same. They get paid to be in the movie, and many of them also take a share in the profits.

Also - tell me how a book is NOT a physical product that can be sold. You just shot your own argument in the foot.

One author who explained this really well was Steven Grant. On his regular column on Comic Book Resources, while being a critic of the RIAA and MPAA, he also points why creative people get royalties.

I'm gonna quote the relevant block, since I think people need to understand this as much as possible.

Meanwhile a friend who took part in the recent Writers Strike mentioned how his friends, with "normal" jobs, questioned by writers (and, by extension, all creative types) have the audacity to think they should be paid "more than once" for their work. This is all part of the same mentality, the idea that whatever you do your employer gets to make the money off it because it's his risk and he's paying you, and you knew that going in.

Well, there's an easy enough answer to that one: if you believe that you're an idiot.

Creative freelancers are their own employers. Like anyone else the deals we make during our active earning years are the deals we live off the rest of our lives. "Normal" jobs have retiree health benefits, pension plans, etc. We get none of that, unless we belong to a strong union with the muscle to provide health care, and that's pretty much only the WGA and only if you've worked in film or television a sufficient amount. But more and more people at "normal" jobs are retiring only to find their health plan has been cancelled or whatever their pensions were invested in have gone belly up, and suddenly they find themselves staring down crippling medical bills or working as an 80 year old greeter at Sam's Club to make ends meet. Most of us don't want to be greeters at Sam's Club so we try to set up arrangements to keep money coming in, especially on things we created. Because that's how it's done these days in this field; things like royalties for exploitations of works -- even if those exploitations didn't exist at the time the work was done -- are now an established element, certainly of the comics business, and of the book business for a considerably longer period. It's our version of a pension plan, as subject to a publisher's ability to profitably exploit a property as any employer pension plan. It has been the usual policy of comics companies to not include old deals/creators in new payment programs, but there's absolutely no good reason why the Siegels & Shusters shouldn't get, at minimum, the same creator compensation deal that the creator of, oh, Spoiler gets.

In the Siegel estate's case, they weren't trying to get anything they're not entitled to under the law, as Larson's opinion makes evident.

Look at it this way: money is how we measure value in our society. With media properties, it's often difficult to determine value up front, and if value were determined up front there would be almost nothing put into production in any medium, because full payment of possible value would be almost prohibitive. Look at the money machine STAR WARS turned into; nobody guessed that in advance, which is why it had no notable stars (except for Alec Guinness and Peter Cushing, and neither were exactly the king of Hollywood at the time) and a relatively low production budget. If George Lucas had known what revenues the property would eventually generate and had asked for all those up front, it never would have gotten made because no one could have afforded to meet the price.

So in media the initial payment isn't the total payment (though it sometimes ends up that way), it's the down payment. Publishers and producers don't "buy" properties so much as place their bets; they secure the cooperation of talent. "Value" isn't determined in advance, but as it accrues, and as the established value of a property increases, so does the amount paid to those who generate it, according to whatever contract is in place. There is the common belief, for whatever reason, that the publisher/producer is the one taking the risk and therefore the rightful end point of all profits. But by choosing to work with them, and the operations they represent, we take a risk too. We are risking that they will make the right decisions along the way to public release, that they will be able to intelligently and fully exploit the property for the fullest short-and-long term profitability. And you know what? More often than not, they don't, even though that's their job. It's only not our risk if we're not getting paid more as the property is more successfully exploited.

Because that's the game.

Your job doesn't work like that? Don't come crying to me about it. Why doesn't it work like that? Why don't you insist on profit sharing? Many companies do profit share; others, while they claim all rights to technologies or other profit streams developed by their employees, also provide additional payments for "the same work." Ever heard of Christmas bonuses? Incentive bonuses? Law firms frequently pay bonuses to lawyers who bring large accounts in, or win large payoff cases. Some companies pay royalties to employees whose ideas continue to generate revenues for the company, for as long as the ideas generate revenue. Nothing in the freelance setup is unheard of in "normal" jobs.

There's a line in an old Bob Dylan song that goes

"And you ask why I don't live here?

Man, how come you don't move?"

Well? How come? Because there's a Sam's Club right around the corner...

So, think of royalties as similar to pension plans, 401k, incentive bonuses, tips, etc...

One reason I'm critical of the anti-copyright movement is the arguments that it's only big companies that will be pulled down if we destroy it or turn back the clock. Wrong, I believe it's the little guys who will suffer the most. A lot of the guys arguing against copyright work for tech companies that can exploit the properties better if the laws were reduced, like YouTube and other sites, and a lot of the guys sharing music, videos, and games are just being selfish and self-centered.

If we're not careful, we'll end up setting things back for creators 500 years, while the big corporations just get bigger and we all get paid less and lose labor rights we've tried to get for decades. Or we'll end up with a system where the Internet is locked down and there will be no expectation of privacy anywhere, you'll have a fully identifiable unit to access the Internet and the government can see all attempts to infringe.

As far as tangible vs. intangible, that's a cultural thing. Keep in mind primitive indigenous peoples like the Native Americans didn't have concepts of land, while some African tribes had no concept of time measurement like we did. The arguments over sematics about intellectual property just seem to me to be attempts to try to bring about change in the existing culture. And that's not always successful.

[drothgery]

Originally Posted by Majoru Oakheart

Alright, then let's say that physical objects simply have more uses to humans by being physical objects than non-physical objects. So, because of the nature of our physical existence, a rock has more value than a txt file with "the sky is blue" written in it.

I agree that the value is not intrinsic to the object. But the rest of what I said I stick by. Physical objects still have more value to humans.

Okay, your DVD player undoubtedly has a chip in it specifically designed to decode DVD movies. If you play a DVD on your computer, a program is likely accomplishing the exact same task. Why is the work of the electrical engineer who designed the chip worth more than the work of the software engineer who wrote the program?

And this isn't an odd case at all. There's a wide range of applications that can be done with either hardware or software, and often are done either way. And as a software guy, albeit not an embedded system guy, I'm inclined to think the software is at least as valuable as the hardware, even though it's not a tangible good.

[Mercutio01]

JohnRTroy brought up a good point and that led me to another thought.

Artists don't know how successful they'll be. For all I know, in 10 years I could be failed poet or a successful one. You cannot prejeudge the value of art and pay for it accordingly. The value is not immediately apparent.

[xechnao]

Originally Posted by Mercutio01

JohnRTroy brought up a good point and that led me to another thought.

Artists don't know how successful they'll be. For all I know, in 10 years I could be failed poet or a successful one. You cannot prejeudge the value of art and pay for it accordingly. The value is not immediately apparent.

This is why some kind of sponsorship to the whole process seems a good idea. Of course to sponsor you also need to control and if we are talking about state sponsorship then the various academies would become the control centers. This may seem tricky though if one sees the various artistic movements historically (for example the conflicts or polemics with the academics) but in the information age perhaps academic institutions would fare better than how they did in the past.

[Krensky]

Originally Posted by xechnao

This is why some kind of sponsorship to the whole process seems a good idea. Of course to sponsor you also need to control and if we are talking about state sponsorship then the various academies would become the control centers. This may seem tricky though if one sees the various artistic movements historically (for example the conflicts or polemics with the academics) but in the information age perhaps academic institutions would fare better than how they did in the past.

Patronage can work. It can also produce crap that a tasteless millionaire likes. And, really, work-for-hire is really another form of patronage.

However, it 's not the only or best way. The issue with modern copyright isn't that it exists or that it allows right holders (artists or otherwise) to male money, it is that the terms are ludicrously long, and there's no method for reclaiming abandoned or orphaned copyrights for the public domain. Shorter terms would allow more creativity, more people to actually see some of these works, and might actually encourage some more creativity in Hollywood or where ever because they wouldn't get to milk something for 120 years, they'd have to make something new.

My issue with software and technology companies isn't copyright related, it's patent related. Which is a completely different subject.

[Silverblade The Ench]

Originally Posted by Oldtimer

We all want more money.

Personally (and as a creator of written works) I subscribe fully to the scandinavian tradition of creator rights - attrbiution, the right to be honored as the creator of one's work. I do think the anglo-saxon invention of copyright is weird thing. They got joined at the hip with the Berne Convention in 1886, but in this day and age copyright has become the albatross around our society's collective neck.

The idea that a creator has some sort of "moral right" to get paid for every copy made, even when someone else does the work of copying it, is totally alien to me. Of course we all wish we had more money, but there is absolutely no reason to have separate laws for one particular group of people. Everyone else either does work-for-hire or produce some physical product or service that can be sold.

Exactly! Maybe cause I'm Scots the older traditions have more relevance with me, hehe!

look, if I said any more it would get political, but folk who support the current copyright lunacy: Greed is Evil. Current unfolding history proves that.
We're running out of time, fast. We need to think of new ways of working.

[JohnRTroy]

Originally Posted by Silverblade The Ench

look, if I said any more it would get political, but folk who support the current copyright lunacy: Greed is Evil. Current unfolding history proves that.
We're running out of time, fast. We need to think of new ways of working.

Greed, however, goes both ways. It's also greedy to download hundreds of songs, videos, and watch and enjoy them without paying for them if that was the intent. Basic economic realities are a fact of life, and artists should be compensated for their work. The reason we have free radio and TV is because of advertising. Just because the computer makes it easier to copy stuff doesn't mean it's already to do it.

[xechnao]

Originally Posted by JohnRTroy

Greed, however, goes both ways. It's also greedy to download hundreds of songs, videos, and watch and enjoy them without paying for them if that was the intent. Basic economic realities are a fact of life, and artists should be compensated for their work.

There is no such thing as greed for information if this is what you are implying. There may be greed for prestige with a class based society but I doubt that downloading stuff has anything to do or promotes a distinction to classes.

Originally Posted by JohnRTroy

The reason we have free radio and TV is because of advertising. Just because the computer makes it easier to copy stuff doesn't mean it's already to do it.

If it is right or not to do it depends on how productive it is-in this case how productive it is to copy stuff.
The whole discussion is about productivity. It seems there is no clear solution yet and this means that people will have to work on finding out this one.
But is this what the owners of the current commercial rights are doing? Instead of going against people to save their investment on the old infrastructure and its exploitation shouldn't they focus their efforts on how to evolve in the current levels of technological progress?
I dunno. I am not an insider, perhaps they have researched it and found out they would make more money by milking out the cow. Perhaps they have not been researching. In any case they are wrong.

[Mercutio01]

Originally Posted by xechnao

There is no such thing as greed for information if this is what you are implying.

Songs, books, and movies are PRODUCTS, not information. Your greed to obtain those products without fair compensation is flat-out wrong. Period. There's no question in that you are advocating the willful theft of personal property to which you do not have the legal right.

But is this what the owners of the current commercial rights are doing? Instead of going against people to save their investment on the old infrastructure and its exploitation shouldn't they focus their efforts on how to evolve in the current levels of technological progress?

So you expect every book, every song, every movie to have advertisements held within them?

I dunno. I am not an insider, perhaps they have researched it and found out they would make more money by milking out the cow. Perhaps they have not been researching. In any case they are wrong.

And what do you suggest?

In any event, artists have functioned in the same manner since man became civilized. In return for the art, the artist was paid either directly or through trade so that he could continue to make art. Artists that weren't paid went back to whatever they were doing before they thought they could live by their art.

You're advocating, effectively, for a socialistic approach to art (note, I'm not attempting to bring politics in, just referencing the idea) in that whatever one person, has everyone is entitled to as well. But that doesn't work in the real world where people need money to provide food, shelter, and safety for themselves and their loved ones. By advocating the free distribution of art (and art alone, since I assume YOU have a job and get paid and are unwilling to part with all of your stuff just to help me out), you want to force artists to find other means to survive.

The idea that people shouldn't be paid for their work is ludicrous.

[xechnao]

Originally Posted by Mercutio01

Songs, books, and movies are PRODUCTS, not information. Your greed to obtain those products without fair compensation is flat-out wrong. Period. There's no question in that you are advocating the willful theft of personal property to which you do not have the legal right.

So you expect every book, every song, every movie to have advertisements held within them?

And what do you suggest?

In any event, artists have functioned in the same manner since man became civilized. In return for the art, the artist was paid either directly or through trade so that he could continue to make art. Artists that weren't paid went back to whatever they were doing before they thought they could live by their art.

You're advocating, effectively, for a socialistic approach to art (note, I'm not attempting to bring politics in, just referencing the idea) in that whatever one person, has everyone is entitled to as well. But that doesn't work in the real world where people need money to provide food, shelter, and safety for themselves and their loved ones. By advocating the free distribution of art (and art alone, since I assume YOU have a job and get paid and are unwilling to part with all of your stuff just to help me out), you want to force artists to find other means to survive.

The idea that people shouldn't be paid for their work is ludicrous.

I am not sure I understand your points. I told you about a state controlled -through institutions for example as in ancient Greece- plan. Artists would exist in the same way as they do today - individuals educated in their society. And they would get paid -as anyone that can get paid in the various states where he can work in the public/state sector.

The problem brand owners see right now is that if they evolve towards a new model they would lose much of their relative status. The small little guys will become bigger(I guess you belong here) and they will become smaller -this regarding your relative positions right now. Why would this happen? Because technology flattens production difficulties and lowers the need of management.

Look at POD for example. Of course marketing remains a problem and here is where a central institution could be really helpful. Conventions and dedicated festivities to promote the art and artists themselves - to help promote the art and artists themselves. Things alike to gen con or museums.

You could be paid directly from the state -those you teach art in universities are paid by the state -if we are talking about a public university- . Competitions or popularity contests could be organized to grand bonuses to the winners too. And the 1st prize goes too...this is possible to do today with the technology we have. And I believe -unless you are somebody "recommended" you will make a better living out of it than struggling as a poet to get by in today's industry and market.

These are just ideas that pop out of my mind. I bet professionals could research and find good solutions, more productive solutions -for the common good- that the ridiculous fallacies of the entertainment industry and market that we have today -regarding the common good that is and not the deep pockets of a bunch of guys.