Piracy

[Silverblade The Ench]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

 

[grickherder]

As a matter of civil disobedience to effect change, I don't recognize the personhood of non-natural people (ie. corporations and similar legal fictions). Thus, I consider them to have no right to the protection afforded by copyright laws. I see such protection as only belonging to natural persons who retain ownership of the rights to their works and who don't engage in the formation of artificial legal constructs that somehow have greater rights than natural people and reduce liability and resonsibility in society.

Thoughts?

 

[Irda Ranger]

I really appreciate Old Timer's description of the Scandinavian Tradition of attribution as the only benefit of authorship. I hadn't seen that before.

But I come down with DaveMage: Copyright is good, but the current term is way too long.

Just to sum up where that comes from:
1. Ceteris paribus, society is better with more art than less art. I think we can all agree that (regardless of any other strengths and weaknesses) Venice and Rome are more pleasant to visually behold than Moscow or New York. We are all better off (happier) with Shakespeare the playwright than Shakespeare the accountant. Etc.

2. As a matter of general economic principles you get more of a good (any good) when you pay people to produce it.

2.a. If you want more art, artists need to get paid.

3. There are any number of ways we can pay artists (in order to get more art (in order to be happier)). And pretty much all of them have been (and continue to be) used to one degree or another. Artists work on commission, take salaried positions at universities and non-profits, get grants from public tax coffers, produce a physical work and sell or auction it at galleries, etc. etc.

3.a. Copyright is just one more way of getting artists paid. The public grants to the artist a temporary (but very narrow) monopoly on the otherwise perfectly legal activities of painting, writing, etc. to the extent that these activities are "copies" of his work. It's a public contract (sometimes called "law") between the art-appreciating public and the art-generating public; "We want art; you produce art; we'll voluntarily give up the right to paint and write these "copies" in order to provide an incentive to you to do original work."

There's nothing moral about it in my opinion. It's just a contract of convenience written in law. Each side gets what they want (art / a living). In the absence of this law each side would be free to do as they please (including producing art that's just a copy of someone else's art - after all, the copier may not be original, but how would you propose stopping the whole public from engaging in copying activities? Would you ban the ownership of paint or writing tools? That certainly would not leave society better off, for then we'd surely have Picasso the pencil-sketcher instead of Picasso the painter).

But because it's a contract between two public groups of people (the art appreciators and the art producers), each side can go back to the table and renegotiate the terms if they feel like they're paying too great an amount for the benefit received. Right now I think the art appreciators are paying far too much, given the length of copyright. Any many of them are demonstrating they agree with me by "opting out' of the legal arrangement and acquiring the copyrighted works by extra-legal means.

Further, recall that copyright is created in the first place to increase the public good (by encouraging the production of original art). But as it stands the great length of copyright term is harmful to the public good because art is "lock up" for a century and cannot be recycled back into the creative mix. Don't we all enjoy a good Ravenloft campaign? Do you think Ravenloft would have been written if Dracula had still be under copyright to someone? Probably not, as the licensing negotiations would have made what was supposed to be a one-off adventure module just not worth it. We (the gaming public) are better off with Ravenloft, the re-mix of gothic novels and D&D adventuring, than without. And copyright would probably have killed it.

So it's a balancing act of term-length, seeking the maximal point on the parabola of societal value. As a legal right, copyright is a gift to the artist from the public, and so the public has the right to name the terms of the gift. The artist has the right to not produce art if he feels the rewards are insufficient.

 

[Irda Ranger]

As a matter of civil disobedience to effect change, I don't recognize the personhood of non-natural people (ie. corporations and similar legal fictions). Thus, I consider them to have no right to the protection afforded by copyright laws. I see such protection as only belonging to natural persons who retain ownership of the rights to their works and who don't engage in the formation of artificial legal constructs that somehow have greater rights than natural people and reduce liability and resonsibility in society.

Thoughts?

The form of ownership should not effect moral choices, as corporations are ultimately owned by people. If an artist forms a corporation for tax purposes, and assigns all his work to the corporation, do you still feel no obligation to respect the copyright merely because of the legal ownership structure?

Corporations (and trusts, partnerships, etc.) are just a conduit for property rights, not a destination. They ultimately lead back to the people that own them. Actions that harm corporations harm their owners.

EDIT: I should note, to avoid confusion, that whether or not you consider IP theft to be harmful is a separate issue. All I'm saying is that if you respect IP when it's held by an individual (in order to avoid harming a person) you must also respect IP when it's held by a legal entity (in order to avoid harming its owners, who are after all people too).

 

[Mercutio01]

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.

I think this is the essence of where we disagree. You do believe in a statist economical model whereby everyone is supported by a state and is paid accordingly, as opposed to a capitalist model where people are paid according to the free market based on how well they create, market, and sell their products.

You are, in essence, advocating for a patronage model of the arts, but rather than it being some rich dude paying, it's the state (which means subsidized art, effectively). I think that leads ultimately to the reduction in quality as it is the competition that drives people to reach new heights of performance. You manage to sort of get around that by proposing contests, but contest are judged by and at the whims of only a select few people. The free market allows for everyone everywhere (well, those within a selected market - for me, poetry readers in the metro-Boston area) to determine the value of my work and what they're willing to pay. If my work doesn't sell I can use that to shift styles or substance, or else just take my lumps and move on.

The single-payer model will result in stagnation, and not just in art.

But now we risk moving into politics, so I'll stop.

 

[xechnao]

I think this is the essence of where we disagree. You do believe in a statist economical model whereby everyone is supported by a state and is paid accordingly, as opposed to a capitalist model where people are paid according to the free market based on how well they create, market, and sell their products.

You are, in essence, advocating for a patronage model of the arts, but rather than it being some rich dude paying, it's the state (which means subsidized art, effectively). I think that leads ultimately to the reduction in quality as it is the competition that drives people to reach new heights of performance. You manage to sort of get around that by proposing contests, but contest are judged by and at the whims of only a select few people. The free market allows for everyone everywhere (well, those within a selected market - for me, poetry readers in the metro-Boston area) to determine the value of my work and what they're willing to pay. If my work doesn't sell I can use that to shift styles or substance, or else just take my lumps and move on.

The single-payer model will result in stagnation, and not just in art.

But now we risk moving into politics, so I'll stop.

It am not sure what you mean by statist. I am neither sure what you mean by subsidized art but I think that your further arguments could be seen as an insult to the classics and the historic geniuses of art that we have the joy to experience still today.
Show me a work of free market than has surpassed ancient greek tragedy. Show me how the free market surpasses the development, the artistic progress achieved by the renaissance masters.
You are worrying about exposition. Why? If you are good you can be exposed, especially today with the internet and whatever. If Boston for example assumes control, if you gathered enough support by your fellow bostonites (or bostonians?) through the internet you could be assumed to work for the Boston accademy of literature or even partecipate in a contest or festival that you would be paid either without winning -winners could get extra prizes or recognition -which is still equally important as it is in the free market -accademies work as a free market -only without the marketing.