Granting the creator such rights takes them away from everyone else. Why is that justified? Why should one person, the creator, be able to tell other people what they can and cannot do?

> In that case, anybody can use it, replicate it, seek to profit from it, claim it as his own, or whatever, all without my having any say whatever in that process.

This is a common approach, but it completely fails as a moral argument. You are saying it is right because it is good for creators. That is an argument of self-interest, and problem is it immediately justifies its opposite. A non-owner can simply say: disobeying the law serves my self-interest, therefore that is right for me.

But it is also short-sighted. You are not only a 'creator', you are a user too. One might well be the greatest writer of books, for example, and so benefit from increased copyright/IP rights. But one will probably not also be the greatest music composer, and the greatest film-maker, and software developer, and so on. We are net consumers, in a sense. To give producers more is to take more from ourselves.

Ultimately, we grant IP rights not because they are for producers, but because they are pragmatically supposed to be useful overall -- that is the only justification. There is no other, no sensible rational purely moral argument, for copyright/IP. That ought always to be remembered.

>> The point is that this is my decision.

>Granting the creator such rights takes them away from everyone else. Why is that justified? Why should one person, the creator, be able to tell other people what they can and cannot do?

http://thegatheringplacehome.myfastforum.org/archive/life-le...

"Granting the hen the right to distribute (or not) the bread takes that right away from everyone else. How is this justified?" asked the cow.

Um, because the hen made the fucking bread, and the cow didn't. I think that our copyright system is bad, and I personally take similar stance to OP vis-a-vis Big Media, but you'll notice that OPs arguments are pragmatic. "You don't provide a good product" "You hurt me with the fees I pay" "The UX of pirating is better." He's attacking the lazy industry for litigating rather than innovating, attacking the middlemen who are McDucking in swimming pools of cash, and attacking their specious arguments about how you're "hurting the artist" (Funny coming from them: record companies aren't generally known for their generous behavior towards artists). Nowhere does he say "no one should have control over their own works."

Any argument about copyright cannot end up in "Well, I think the authors should have control of their own works." This is circular, and it boils down to assuming copyright as an axiom without justification. It also can't end up in an analogy to a case in the physical world - there are too many differences between physical goods and IP. For instance, in your example of the hen with bread, if this were a case of copyright, everyone _including the hen_ could end up eating bread, after the hen put in the work. Is this fair to the hen? Maybe not. On the other hand, though, there have to be ways to balance things just enough to reward the hen for her efforts without starving all the other animals. The conclusion we gained from the physical-world analogy in which _only one animal_ could eat the bread simply does not apply, as one of its fundamental assumptions has been violated.

In short, there are perfectly good arguments you can use (and which have been used, when copyright was invented) to argue why copyright is good and essential _for society as a whole_, and there are of course arguments against it as well, but too often these are not articulated _at all_. People argue from the end result "Artists should have control over their work!", which is essentially the _definition_ of copyright, and use it to argue for copyright. And all too often, the position of the rest of society - which, since they outnumber the artists, ought to be given more weight - is ignored.

> a big problem with these discussions is people seem to assume, as an axiom, that allowing authors to control downstream copying is natural. It isn't

But neither is physical ownership of things or land. We could well go back to letting the 'free market' sort it out, or conversely split everything evenly and legalize any maneuvers to do so. I'm not arguing that physical and digital goods are the same, but rather that both are arbitrary.

For a tiny example, German law downplays the usual importance of physical ownership if theft is about food for direct consumption. This decision is just as arbitrary as heightening the value of authorship.

All laws have to be analyzed as an arbitrary society-as-a-whole thing to make any sense. And that's why I think it's harmful that this discussion is always reduced to tiny examples with two people and a car, or in this case a hen and other animals, and a single transaction at one point in time only.

Not disagreeing with the core of your posting at all, but I think you got lost in the hen analogy too.

> And all too often, the position of the rest of society - which, since they outnumber the artists, ought to be given more weight - is ignored.

Not sure about the phrasing of that argument. If female nurses demanded more wages than male ones, should this opinion be given 95% of the weight?

Oh, indeed, we should apply the same rubric to physical property. But I've already analyzed a number of other cases in the post I linked, and didn't feel like bothering to analyze whether physical property is a good thing or not.

> Not sure about the phrasing of that argument. If female nurses demanded more wages than male ones, should this opinion be given 95% of the weight?

It's not about what people _demand_. Of _course_ they'll always demand something better for themselves. Here we need to weigh their demands not against the other male nurses, but rather against society as a whole, _including people other than nurses_. Does giving female nurses more pay harm the quality or cost of care for patients more than it improves it for said nurses, after weighting by population? Does it promulgate certain values that we have decided are undesirable in society as a whole (eg, gender inequality)? Does it, in the end, actually harm said nurses (perhaps their civil rights are eroded by the popular opinion shifting away from gender equality). These are the sort of questions you need to ask. It's not just, oh, within this arbitrary subpopulation, the subsubpopulation that has the greatest proportional share gets what they want.

Never mind, yes: It should be decided in exactly this democratic way. In both cases though, we should hope that the majority is well-informed enough to make a decision. (Oh BTW, democratic decisions are not an axiomatic 'right thing' either, you can have nice discussions about this in China :) )

Yes, we could say that work justifies payment (very simply and roughly). But that is not in dispute. It is that it does not justify payment by a particular means -- one that restricts the freedom (to copy etc.) of others. And -- you will forgive me if I am mistaken -- I am afraid inclusion of the word 'fucking' does not quite cover that.

Does payment depend, necessarily, on restriction of copying? No, it does not. It is possible to be paid in other ways -- that do not impose on other freedoms. Then in the most general sense, that sounds like what we ought to be doing (i.e. that is moral).

Again, in so far as it turns out most practical to pay by copyright, that is how far it is justified. Not in some other ethical way.

So treat Expressive works just like any other product, that can be bought, resold, copied, modifyed/hacked. Is that the logical conclusion of your position?

How do we (should we?) protect innovation? The patent system? the copyright system? Some other form of protection?

What ways? And if you say "selling t-shirts" then you lose.

The only other way I can think of is patronage; I produce a work for a patron according to their wishes, and hand it over for a fee, at which point I relinquish any further control.

Are there other models?

I don't know that this continues to work for digital goods. Are there examples you're thinking of?

There is a reason copyright law and property law are universally separate: One creates an artificial restriction on the public to prevent them from doing something which would not take away the freedom to act of the creator of the work, the other places restrictions on the public to prevent them from taking away the freedoms of the owner of something, who would be deprived of the use of what is stolen.

Pretty much every legal system on earth recognizes that these are fundamentally different, and pretty much every one of them recognize that copyright protection is a tool putatively intended for the benefit of society - not created to protect against injustice.

I do not want music I have composed to be used in risqué films; I do not want software that I released under the GPL to be assimilated into proprietary products; etc. If by releasing my work to the public I relinquish all control, then I can do nothing to enforce my wishes.

Is it better for the public that I do not release anything that I am not willing to let be used in any fashion whatsoever? Or is it better that I do release, but assert copyright restrictions on how the public may use my works (which they wouldn't have at all if I kept them to myself)?

The artist didn't make the ability to produce in large numbers and distribute at zero cost, that is what technology did.

A technology that served the labels and musicians for one hundred years.

Now it is turning on them and they start to complain. Bo freaking ho.

People make music without making a single dime on it. Great music in fact fantastic music. The big artists are big because the record labels and IP laws make them big. Not because they through some fair game was the best of the crop.

The argument of "well you didn't invent TCP/IP so you can't expect to make money distributing digital copies of your music" is the slipperiest of slippery slopes, as none of us personally created all the technologies we use to make a living. I use a laptop, text editor, and web browser, none of which I created: have I forfeit my right to make a living as a web developer?

It seems that the simplest, most generic expression of your argument (correct me if I'm wrong) is "No one can reasonably expect to make money on anything which can be reproduced digitally, and this is more or less fair." I disagree.

If I take an microphone from you, you don't have an microphone. If I copy a song from you, you still have the song yourself.

It might be that you don't see the difference but I do and therein is our disagreement.

In the absence of a contract (if I just decided to work for a day for you without your prior agreement to pay for the day of work), yes. Doing work does not automatically create an obligation of others to pay you for having done it.

There are two things that can create such an obligation:

* altering something you already had (such as an object or your body)

* a contract between you and another party

Let's turn it around.

Would you pay for someone who sent you a video of some work they did for someone else?

..and so I have to buy a new one if we both want to have one at the same time.

"If I copy a song from you, you still have the song yourself."

Awesome, we can just buy one then and split the cost! But why stop there? Let's also give a copy to Tom, Dick and Harry so that each pays 20%! Now, what if we could somehow share the song and the cost with a hundred million people across the world..

In fact I can chip in and share it with 200 friends if I want to.

You see the difference?

That is the difference.

It's not how things work.

Generally the more niche something is the less fans it will have but the more those fans will love it.

A lot of pop music and modern moves + video games are designed specifically to appeal a bit to a large number of people. It's almost impossible to create something that appeals a lot to everyone.

So the other option is to find a small niche following and concentrate on extracting the most amount of money from them. I imagine that without some form of copyright most of the music produced would either be stuff produced by musicians for other musicians or for the upper classes who would fund it's continued development.

There would be a lot less "angry prole" music.

From what I hear he started out covering pop songs on YouTube. Exactly the type of infringement that SOPA/PIPA is trying to kill off.

There were no cameras in those days if there was somebody would simply record the show and distribute it, I would imagine Shakespeare would want some of that action himself.

I'd like to charge everyone who sees me when I walk down the street - I'd make a bundle - but I'd think society would be pretty stupid if they indulged me.

We are talking about normal consumers.

Every hour you have to spend working a day job is an hour you can't spend creating.

I am telling you that even with the music you like whatever that is there is plenty of great music that you never have heard of and never will. That's how it is in all genres of music.

There are of course good musicians who distribute their music monetarily free but how much of it is explicitly copyright free (i.e libre not gratis)?

I know a number of aspiring musicians who if a large media company took their music and redistributed it under a different name with different people lip syncing to their vocals then boy would they be pissed.

Art can be profitable for the artist, but whether it is or isn't, it's still happening. People will create sculptures to admire and music to dance to. The distribution stream was invented far, far later. Let's not conflate the creation of the art and the business of selling it.

People love design, and do great design without making a single dime on it. The rich designers are rich because professional networking, big companies and IP laws make them big. Not because they were the best of the crop.

Boo Freaking Hoo. Real designers do it for love. Only phonies want to get paid.

I don't know why you guys keep arguing the same misguided argument.

Here is the difference.

When I design for a client I put in the work and design specifically to to them. I am in other words a performing artist.

I don't just send them a CD with the same design I did for all my other clients.

Are you really telling me that you can't see the difference here?

I am not saying artists shouldn't make money so there is no need to repeat the same tired claim.

This is about whether it's a right to make money on mass-producing CDs?

Let's assume that there is no copyright. You get a contract from a client to design them a logo , website and smartphone app to promote their business.

However your client knows that if a competitor wishes to copy their entire website including logo and app etc they can do so with impunity so all that they will get from whatever sum they invest in your work is a slight first mover advantage and probably the better the work you do the more likely someone else is to copy it.

How much do you think they are willing to pay you for your work now?

Counterfeit goods to my knowledge fall under trademark laws.

Fashion is also a very visible way to display wealth whilst software is not, "aaah but was your copy of Office 2010 compiled by Steve Ballmer himself".. just doesn't happen.

If we got rid of software copyright what would actually happen would be that all commercial software would be moved into a SaaS model and companies would keep their servers and code under lock and key so that nobody could get physical access to it. This would probably give you less freedom rather than more.

Perhaps some movies would also be screened only at cinemas so that nobody ended up with a DVD that they could copy.

There was a great article on this on the net, written by someone in the industry who fleshed it out with anecdotes which included a high level designer going into a budget store and looking at the design and products there, to copy.

Sadly I can't find that article, I offer a freaknomics article in its stead: http://www.freakonomics.com/2010/03/03/behind-the-scenes-of-...

Software will turn into SaaS anyway or to onLive types of constructions.

If they release an update that I don't like for example then it will not be possible for me to retain the older version.

If they decide to discontinue the software or go bust etc then I will lose access to it, this would not happen if I had my own copy.

If I have all my data saved on their servers then I am at their whim as I don't have the files myself so that makes it harder to move to another piece of software should they change their ToS in a way I do not agree with.

If I have confidential data stored with them and their servers are broken into then this causes issues that could be avoided by holding it on my own computer firewalled away from the internet.

And crucially I will not be able to access it without a working internet connection.

This may be the way of the future whether I like it or not but I wouldn't hail it completely as a good thing in terms of freedom or digital rights etc.

I actually find it somewhat ironic that a lot of the best FOSS work (Linux , Apache , Python etc) that was intended to create a software freedom utopia is actually being used primarily to build walled gardens where you have no control over the software.

You very well know there are plenty of ways around this and it is being practiced today.

Spotify is one example.

You are creating pseudo problems that would not really exist.

If you have software without the cloud then you return to the same copyright problem repeated ad nauseum in this thread.

Ok, perhaps you could have applications in the cloud with locally stored data but I can't see this as being popular for 2 reasons.

1) Vendors would like the lock-in power that storing your data gives.

2) If I have a lot of data it may not be practical to upload it every time I use the cloud software on a slow uplink.

There are not really "plenty of free alternatives" to many types of software, at least alternatives that are as good as commercial offerings. Examples would include image editors and games.

Using Spotify as an example, all of the music is streamed from the internet so if they remove a track from their library then I lose my ability to stream it. Also to sign up for Spotify now you need a facebook account, I don't have one or want one. Luckily I got my account before this was a requirement but if they decide to apply this policy retroactively then I'm shit out of luck.

I just don't understand why you think losing all control over your software would be preferable to copyright?

Do you know how many songs are stealing of each other?

Should we tell musicians to pay for the licks and riffs they takes from someone else music and incorporate into his how?

Of course you could argue how much imitation should be allowed before it is considered a copyright or patent violation.

So what is it? Is it taking something away from the original creator (and the creator before him/her) or is it not.

I would not equate copying necessarily with stealing but each copy that is made of your software/music whatever will dilute it's value to an extent unless there is some compensation. Commercial software hopes you will compensate by paying money, OSS hopes you will compensate by providing code or some other service.

So it's not really any different, besides of course that transcribing someone's licks and incorporating it into your own style isn't going to get exposed.

Your argument seems to boil down to what the minimum unit of valid IP is. This is a complex issue and is often fought in courts.

Taking a riff from someone elses song and rebuilding a new song around it requires a lot more creativity time and money than simply copying and redistributing the song.

Copyright isn't so much for protecting an "idea" as such (that's what patents are for). It is to stop somebody reproducing a complete piece of work without prior agreement.

Let's say I build a new type of software and publish it, then somebody else thinks that is a good idea and builds their own version that is similar to mine (without re-using my source code). I would view that as flattery and competition. However I have a strong first mover advantage and whilst they may have learned from some of my mistakes they still have to actually do the work of creating their software which puts us economically on a relatively even footing.

Suppose instead they simply redistribute my software with their logo on it for half the price then they have a strong economical advantage because they didn't have to invest the initial development costs that I did.

Are musicians stealing from other musicians when they transcribe a song or a riff or a chord progression, or a signature sound?

If they are then all musicians are stealing all the time.

If it's not then copying music isn't stealing either.

I deliberately did not equate anything with stealing and you haven't responded to the overall point of my previous post.

Let me rephrase then.

Is it different from an ip point of view if you transcribes riff or a chord progression from other musicians?

In other words is it ok when the musicians do it?

Why would it be different for musicians?

Will you ask for donations? What happens if you announce you will work on something and take a bunch of donations in the first couple of months (enough to live off).

What happens if the donations then dry up and you run out of money so you can't continue to work on the program full time but it is not finished? Do you have to go into debt to repay the people who donated or do they have to take a gamble that your program will get finished and be good enough?

Or do you only start work when you have sufficient donations to finish development? What happens if you misjudge this?

My point isn't that this model can carry over unchanged to a different field; rather, all I maintain is that it is possible for a creative endeavor to be pushed largely by creators working for a salary rather than a royalty. I do not know enough about fields outside of programming to figure out exactly how it would work, but I see no reason it could not exist.

Open source dev tools are great because they are built by developers who understand what developers want and crucially they were built because they were needed i.e there was nothing commercial that did the job in the way they wanted.

How many developers know enough about developing image , video or audio editing software to do it well on their own? Most OSS solutions in this area are basically poor clones of commercial software. Also where will the money come from to fund them doing this full time?

I know as one example Ardour is developed full time and is quite a cool piece of OSS for sound editing but it's developed by one guy who can barely pay his bills from the donations, he probably makes what he would at burger king.

You would think that computer programmers would be able to design some awesome OSS games right? After all about 50% of my CS class joined the course because they wanted to make games and it's probably one of the most popular topics on any programming forum.

Well I can't really think of a single OSS game that has ever really impressed me and certainly none have become popular in the same way Half life or Skyrim has (by OSS game I mean a game that was developed under an OSS model, not something where the code was released by the developer 10 years later or something that is essentially an open source mod for a commercially developed game).

Slavery was abolished partly because there was enough technology to make it less necessary.

If we could automate human creativity then I suppose copyright would no longer be necessary.

Gosh I am behind the times.

I think "adapt or die" has the risk of killing a lot of good business models that have so far provided us with some great content/software etc.

I have yet to be provided with a good business model for content in a post copyright world that can be made to work for every type of content that we currently enjoy.

I've worked for very decent folks (google in Dublin to name one) and very undecent ones. When you are not a mainstream artist, when you are part of the profesional artists crowd (people who live from it but don't make millions) which is the overwhelming majority of artists, you don't give a damn about all this bullshit on piracy. But you do pay attention on the fact that anything that further strenghtens big corporations will in turn make your situation more fragile.

The question is: To what extent? If we measure how much income a person have from intellectual property and how much money they spend on intellectual property (if they not steal) then you will see the following:

Most people are only consumers.

A fraction of people create things as a hobby, so their consumption is not much smaller than their production.

A tiny fraction of people produce intellectual property for a living: their consumption is tiny compared to their production.

If you are in the first camp then in short term no-copyright may be good for you. But if you are in the 3rd camp, it is bad for you, because in that case you are 99% producer and 1% consumer of these kind of goods.

That's why I think that the no-copyright movement is unfortunatelly partly an anti-intellectual, populist, 'anti-civilisational', (ok, maybe anti elitist too) movement: the less creative people's fight to take away rights from more creative people. (And creativity is only partly talent, it is also really hard work, so this movement is against hard intellectual work.)

When combined with a pro-capitalism platform, you might be right. If writers need copyright to be able to eat and pay rent, then you are right.

But anti-copyright, combined with an anti-property ("anarchist") platform isn't necessarily anti-civilisation, or anti-intellectual. Other structures, like syndicates, architecture, designed artifacts, and other forms of culture, can provide "civilisation".

In such a society, writers (and everyone else) would be born with the right to a fair share of the living space and food around them. They would be expected to contribute a fair share. As they got better at writing, people might start to agree that their time was better spent writing than in the fields, and would petition their work syndicate to post them as a writer.

(Of course, this is anarchism, so they could just go write the books anyway, they would just lose social standing if people felt they weren't contributing their fair share.)

You might say that creators wouldn't create if there wasn't a carrot of Wealth dangling out in front of them somewhere.

We can debate that point. I'm interested to hear your thoughts. But in my experience the great creators of culture who I know well do it despite the monetary consequences, not because of them. They write themselves into poverty... orchestrate music into the middle class... paint on a teacher's salary.

And yeah, some of them become insanely wealthy. But I don't think the majority of them do it for the wealth. If they do, that would be very stupid, no matter what system you're in.

Give everyone the basic necessities in fair trade for contributing to the syndicates that make their food, housing, and health possible, and I think you'd see an explosion in creativity, not the opposite.

I don't think that is ever true of anybody. A writer needs to read 10, 100, 1000 books before he can produce a book of similar quality. The same applies to musicians who learn from other people's music, painters who learn from other people's paintings, and scientists who build upon other people's work. Nobody creates IP out of a vacuum. If anything, creative people are even more indebted to other people's IP than simple consumers are.

Because, the creative work would not exist if not for the creator. If you take away the creator's right (and I am not arguing that it should be infinite and indefinite), you take away the incentive to produce and expose creative work. In effect, everyone loses.

You can't deny however that any massive undertakings would be effectively killed. No one will invest millions of dollars to produce a video game, or hundreds of millions to produce a movie if it can be freely copied.

It's great that you can make a game or movie on a small budget, but isn't it better to live in a world where we can have both? Does the cost of copyright really outweigh the benefits of living in a society where creative people can devote all of their time producing content?

You see the problem is that you have to think about this in a much larger perpective to realize that things will even themselves out.

With regards to cost of copyright. Then yes when it makes people criminals to the extent it do today and fines them with amounts it do then it is way way way to high.

I'm not sure how 3d models would make a difference in movies? Many movies are already basically 3d renders.

That's only true currently for games that are only playable via a single central online service (e.g WoW etc) and that's sort of dictated by the game format itself.

What I mean is a world where all games are video streamed to you even if they are single player only.

You know times change.

Anyway. I made my point already.

At the moment we have many people making something equivalent to "folk art" and getting paid to do so. Folk art does not necessarily need support from a patron since it is typically fairly easy to make (i.e. it can be done in one's spare time). People will continue making folk art after they can no longer be ensured payment for their work, though to a lesser extent.

There ain't such thing as free art.

Still, I'd rather not have to depend on charity-lumberjacking, you know? If someone wants to chop down trees for free, that's between him and his god (or dryad, as the case may be). If that's the only way trees ever get cut down? God help us all.

Above statement refers, for purposes of argument, to sustainable tree harvesting, so as to avoid irrelevant side tangents.

A lumberjack can't digitally mass produce cutting down trees. They have to actually be present at each tree.

What you cannot do, however, is find a difference that distinguishes them in a way that defends your argument that we shouldn't worry about a world where X is only produced by charity, since some people do X for free.

If you don't care that art would only be produced for free, neither should you care if lumberjacking only happened by charity. If you're not ready to go that far, you might not want to lean so heavily on the argument that "(some) artists create for free".

Don't blame me for you lack of imagination that would have allowed you to see a world where artist could create without making money on digitally mass produced songs.

It is possible plenty of people are doing it.

So please spare me the strawmen.

The guy that cracked your account and used it to make these comments:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3480634 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3480674 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3480761

>Don't blame me for you lack of imagination that would have allowed you to see a world where artist could create without making money on digitally mass produced songs.

I'm sure, that, just as with making music, there are revenue models for lumberjacking that don't involve charging for lumberjacking services. For example, they could broadcast live video of themselves chopping down trees and charge for that. Or maybe trees should only be cut down by their owners so they're not technically earning money from chopping down a tree.

Or, you know, we could just bypass the whole charade and let people charge for the lumberjacking/artistic creations that they were responsible for (if they so wish) rather than stick to some ideological belief that it's somehow wrong to do so while hoping they come up with some convoluted way to accomplish the same thing with more restricted means.

It's great that there are ways to produce good X without invoking exclusivity rights in X; but for those (many) cases where X wouldn't otherwise be produced, I would like for that model to be an option.

That doesn't mean the current copyright regime is optimal; far from it. It just means that the mentality of "IP sucks and everyone will produce valuable stuff for free" is looney.

If you cant see the difference between a performance and copying the performance to re-sell it, then frankly there isn't much to discuss.

- offering an argument, - being shown how it is flawed, and then - ignoring the explanation you were just given, to fall back on a variant of "copying is free".

I think a lot of us readers would prefer it if you engage the arguments given to you.

What haven't I addressed? Your flawed premise that lumberjacking can be compared to selling CDs?

What you haven't addressed is your inability to consistently apply your claims about non-IP-reliant methods of art production. Here's what happened:

You post (the one right before my first reply), showing indifference to the prospect of it being impossible to make a monetary profit from production of intellctual works.

Paraphrasing your comment, you say,: Real artists don't work for profit, so it's actually a good thing if production of movies, books, etc cannot earn a monetary profit due to people not respecting IP claims.

Then, I come back, and ask if you are so indifferent to the unprofitability of production of something else people want being rendered unprofitable due to widespread refusal to recognize rights therein, using the example of lumberjacking.

Due to your apparent inability to follow chains of logic beyond a certain depth, you felt it was sufficient to cite one superficial difference betweeen lumberjacking and creation of intellectual works, and considered it "case closed" and duh why can't this idiot see that they're different.

What you don't understand (almost certainly due to an unwillingness to) is that this difference, while true, does not invalidate the analogy I was drawing, because they are not different in the relevant aspects. What aspects?

1) In both cases, there would be a bad incentive effect on the valuable activity: the lumberjacking and intellectual works that need a profit incentive to produce, won't be.

2) In both cases, you can find some circuitous, inefficient way to reproduce the profitability that would otherwise come from simply recognizing rights therein.

In response to both of these similarities, and due to your inability to consistently apply the principles you advocate, you simply fall back on, "art can be copied, cutting a tree down can't". And that's true. But it means precisely nothing in terms of the above similarities.

Quite frankly, it's frustrating when you keep falling back on your standard line that they're different (in a narrow way), completely obvlivious to how it contradicts what you just said ("who cares if socially-beneficial activity X can't turn a profit [except by circuitous routes]?"). I expect better from people I debate with, especially on HN.

Where does this argument end? Why can't I drive your car whenever I want? Is your "ownership" of your car really more valid than my ownership of something that I invested significant time and effort (maybe even money) to create, and if so, why?

Of course people who are anti-copyright will be quick to point out that a bunch of bits on a disk that can be infinitely duplicated is different from a physical car. And that's true. But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the blood, sweat, and tears that the creator invests in the act of creation.

I could post more far fetched analogies. It's in a woman's interest to have self control over her body. It's in a rapists best interest to take control of her body. Does the argument that each individuals self-interest is reciprocal apply in this case? Is that the "sensible rational purely moral" conclusion? Of course not. There are a myriad of other factors that need to be taken into consideration.

Basically the great-grand-parent is saying that there's no rational or moral justification for someone profiting from innovation, because it's in someone else's self interest to take that innovation, and these two parties self interests cancel each other out to the exclusion of all other factors. I find that to be an extremely naive and simplistic argument.

you could also ask

What if the instrument creators started to license the use of their guitars, drums and people had to pay royalties.

Then the alternative is that all creators keep their output to themselves and people with this entitled attitude never get to make use of their work. Or maybe they don't make something at all. Or maybe they don't even try to learn to make something and get a "real" job because anything they would create is no longer able to buy them lunch. There are people who want to give works away free and for them that's great but what gives any of us the rights to something someone else has made? It's one thing to come across a piece of work legitimately and then be able to do as you please with it.

The music industry is an easy target and even I have a hard time defending them. What about software though? A lot of us here make our living partly due to the protections of copyright. It's one thing to circumvent Apple or Microsoft and pirate some software but what about the indie developer? That guy can't make up the costs with live performances like other types of creators. You either pay for a copy or you don't. If one copy gets bought and 500 get pirated then that guy just got royally screwed. Not all software lends itself to free downloads with paid support. Not all software can be SaaS. So what then? Even open source developers have day jobs. You can't live on PayPal donations and Flattrs.

This whole anti-copyright argument sounds wonderful but the world isn't ready yet. Maybe in another 20 years. The answer isn't to get rid of copyright, the answer is to scale it back to a point where it's more sane.

That is provably not the case: People still published written works, performed plays and music for thousands of years before copyright laws were introduced.

Even today, there are vast numbers of novels, movie clips, songs etc. being made available freely.

The alternative is that SOME creators keep their output to themselves. The vast majority of creators are not being paid to create their content.

Now, if you want to make a claim that the works created by the ones that would keep their output to themselves are more important to society, then that's a claim that is not as easily refutable, and it'd even be possible you're right, depending on how one measures importance of a work.

So, the entire issue for indie developers (of whose ranks I count myself a member) can be solved by not making a product until you confirm that it is wanted (i.e., pay me while I develop it, then do whatever). Alternately, you leave the creation of games (which have little to no lasting value) to be works of art, and let the artists and hobbyists make them for whatever living they can eke out. Entertainment as an industry, much less a secure one, is a silly idea.

You can't live on PayPal donations

Tell that to the guys from Wolfire, or Notch. I'm sure they'll want to know--they've been doing it for years, and would be upset to find out that they can't make a living that way.

This whole anti-copyright argument sounds wonderful but the world isn't ready yet. Maybe in another 20 years. The answer isn't to get rid of copyright, the answer is to scale it back to a point where it's more sane.

There is no magical time where the switch will be flipped and the world will embrace and move post copyright. Better we solve this--now--then wait until our infrastructure and freedoms are attacked. Before drastic measures such as breaking core parts of the interne--oh, huh, welp.

There is no sane part to copyright. None. It's madness. It is saying that we must artificially introduce scarcity onto things that can be duplicated freely--that's mad!

Every hour an artist has to spend at a day job is an hour they can't spend creating. It's an hour they can't spend practicing. It's an hour they can't spend raising awareness of their work.

For example a lot of rock music comes from anger and frustration of having to work a shitty job, behave in a prescribed way and having little money.

As soon as you have released a few albums and have free reign to fill your nose with coke , cover yourself in tattoos and can afford to live wherever you like you may lose some of initial meaning behind the art and start to become pretentious and contrived.

1) Artists have memories. When I was much younger, I worked as a telemarketer. It was probably the worst job I ever held in my life. It was soul-crushing. Even though I am now a reasonably successful software engineer, I still remember how difficult it was to go to work knowing that unless I was lucky, I was going to be rejected all day long. Even though I've been with my partner for more than a decade, I remember how chaotic, foolish, and frustrating the dating scene was. Anyone with a few years under their belt knows that a bad memory can jump out at you and make you feel exactly the way you did when it happened.

2) An artists music evolves over time. Look at the Beatles. "With the Beatles" is an astonishingly different album from "Abbey Road." Just because you start out as one thing doesn't mean you have to be that thing for the rest of your career.

3) Look at artists like Johnny Cash, Bruce Springsteen, John Mellencamp, and even Billy Joel to some extent. No matter what your opinion of their music is, it's hard to argue that they are not iconic representations of the "everyman" in music. Most of their output was produced while they were some of the highest paid performers in the world. Even a guy like Jay-Z hasn't been poor or street for a very long time, but if he puts out another record, you can be damned sure that there will be millions of people who buy it because he knows how to write songs that relate to the kind of person he used to be.

Don't put too much stock in the idea that you have to be street level to write good music.

Your logic is faulty - just because some people will continue to create in spite of the system does not mean all can continue to. Yes, indie game developers can continue to make games, but what about larger undertakings? You can't spend millions of dollars and employ large teams to devote themselves fully to creating a game like, say, Diablo 3, without some way to support those deveopers, artists, etc. A world with only indie games is less rich than a world with both indie and commercial games.

> "Tell that to the guys from Wolfire, or Notch. I'm sure they'll want to know--they've been doing it for years, and would be upset to find out that they can't make a living that way."

I'm not following this argument. Both Wolfire and Mojang (Notch's company) sell games. They also provide free demos but their primary income comes from selling copyrighted works, not donations.

I'm not following this argument. Both Wolfire and Mojang (Notch's company) sell games. They also provide free demos but their primary income comes from selling copyrighted works, not donations.

So, to a point, they are effectively living off "donations" until they ship 1.0, right? Preorders are effectively donations to continue development.

All you get for free is an older version where you cannot do multiplayer or save your game. Basically a demo.

Your solution for indie developers sounds extremely far fetched and idealistic. "I'm developing software that does X, Y, and Z. If you like how that sounds then pay me before it's finished and then if I ever do finish it you'd better hope it lives up to what I said it would do. It's okay if it turns out to be garbage because you get to do whatever you want with it once I give it to you"? That doesn't scale. You're paying for what the software does for you, not for the actual software itself. It's a form of paying for a service. Some of the cost is for development but the core of what you pay is for the value you derive from it. Ideally there's a free trial and you see if you like it. Then you decide whether the cost lines up with what you're willing to pay based on the value you derive from it. In the end you're free to go elsewhere if it doesn't line up. It's a great system for all parties. I don't play any games but I do enjoy music and movies. The idea that entertainment as an industry being silly isn't relevant. We're talking about opinions here so I don't want to totally discount yours but I think it makes perfect sense for entertainment to be an industry. That's the nature of capitalism. Anything can become an industry if you set it up right. You can say the same of any industry but if that became the norm than business as we know it would cease to exist and everything would be a hobby. That sounds like entitlement. Like saying "I should be able to see movies, plays, concerts, etc. free because that's just a hobby and they should go get real jobs".

Living off donations can work I'll admit but it doesn't scale. Creators should be able to set the price for their work just as consumers should not be forced to pay for anything. But if you're not paying the creator what he asks then you aren't entitled to set his price or take it free. The market does that.

I know there will never be a right time for this just like anything but realistically we're not even close to being set up for such a switch. While I disagree with you right now and I think your position is a little extreme I have to say that the work of people like you will get us to a point where that switch may become a real possibility. I'd argue instead for everyone to agree on some middle ground but whichever way things go I will abide.

There is a sanity to copyright. There are competing interests between creators and consumers. That's part of what makes the market. Frankly, I'm surprised that people are defending only one side of this since we are all both creators and consumers. We can't give consumers all the rights and leave creators with no control of their works but we also can't give creators so much control that they seriously impede on the rights of consumers.

A lot of the rhetoric surrounding this seems to be focused on copyright but what I see is an anti-business position. We can't let ourselves go to extremes in the name of freedom or in the name of business as either would be an unjust crusade. Instead of chopping off our heads to cure a headache lets try to deal with specific issues. Abolishing copyright hurts us as much as letting copyright extend beyond its current state. The biggest issue I see is the distribution issue. We need to come to some agreement on what is legal when it comes to "sharing" among other things.

I'm not in favor of SOPA or it's relatives. I think copyright has become a monster. But I still support the idea, not the implementation. For a community that benefits from copyright so much I don't understand why so many are taking such an extreme position. I'd rather see us be more moderate. It's more same to call for shorter copyright terms and such than to get rid of it. When people argue about middle men screwing over artists and consumers we should be finding a way to either get rid of middle men or curb their power without totally obliterating copyright. Copyright can serve to keep works free just as much as it can restrict freedoms and most people forget that. Artists should get together and unionize for a higher cut of profits.

I wonder what would happen if record labels were fair to their artists. Would all the people bragging that they're pirates because it's morally wrong for labels to pay such a pittance still use that argument or has it just been a petty excuse all along? I get the feeling that a lot (but not all) of these "freedom fighting pirates" are doing things for their own self interest and not for any moral reasons at all.

So I disagree still. I'm not one to stubbornly hold an opinion to be right. So I'm interested to learn more but i think this position isn't just one position but part of a package deal that comes with an entire worldview that I don't understand.

"There are competing interests between creators and consumers."

This part I don't quite get--what do consider the rights in conflict? Obviously there is the difference in what creators want to be paid and what consumers want to save, but is there something beyond this you intend...?

"When people argue about middle men screwing over artists and consumers we should be finding a way to either get rid of middle men or curb their power without totally obliterating copyright."

The problem I see is that copyright is primarily used these days to benefit the middlemen, right? Indeed, copyright (by its very nature) is aimed solely at benefiting whoever is in charge of distribution--it's about the right to copy.

As such, as technology attacks and removes middlemen, so too does it render obsolete the notion of copyright. If you empower consumers to handle their own distribution, the motivations for having copyright at all wither away and the legal machinery becomes vestigial.

"A lot of the rhetoric surrounding this seems to be focused on copyright but what I see is an anti-business position."

I am not qualified to speak on behalf of anyone claiming similar views. For my own part, though, it isn't about being anti-business--as Chesterson said: the problem isn't that there are too many capitalists; it's that there are too few.

I believe that copyright creates a barrier to entry in information economies that is vastly outweighed by the progress that comes from being able to openly improve and distribute works. Moreover, I believe that it allows business models that would not be practical in a free market.

I don't think we need to do away with business--I just believe that if you create IP you need to accept (as a given!) that you won't be able to control its dissemination, and model your business accordingly.

If you can provide support for it in the wild, better then the other guy, it's a viable business (see Red Hat, Ardor Labs, etc.)

If you can provide faster access and better UX for it, it's a viable business (see Steam, Netflix, etc.)

If you can't do any of that, but can offer a sense of engagement with the community while polishing the software and get paid by donations/preorders, it's a viable business (see Minecraft, Overgrowth, etc.)

Otherwise, you are literally building an entire business on scarcity the government provides and enforces. This doesn't strike me as sound.

While I disagree with you right now and I think your position is a little extreme I have to say that the work of people like you will get us to a point where that switch may become a real possibility.

I apologize that I'm so hardline on this, but I feel it the only rational position to take--tenable, perhaps not, but certainly the most rational.

"So I'm interested to learn more but i think this position isn't just one position but part of a package deal that comes with an entire worldview that I don't understand."

Thank you for keeping an open mind. :)

I've been wrestling with this for a few years now in one way or another.

My biggest suggestion is to start thinking about what is truly being sold, what value that truly has, and whether or not this system makes sense. Try to identify what makes that work, and who supports it, and how much excess exists along the way from the creator to the consumer.

This is a very subtle distinction. We should do all we can to help creators, not publishers. Publishers have their place in the distribution chain, but they should not be allowed to act as if they were the creators.

If the publisher's business model is failing, so be it. Publishers and gatekeepers are not worth saving. Creators are. Support creators. Buy CDs directly from the artists. Buy them through the shortest distribution chain possible (even if that might be Amazon or Apple).

Create laws that make copyright an unalienable right, thus forcing publishers back to the publishing business that is rightly theirs.

I'm not sure.

A singer and songwriter aren't the only people involved in a music product. Likewise a song isn't the only thing involved in a music track. It involves production, for example, investment, the confluence of a variety of artistic, technical, management and manufacturing skills. Why shouldn't a music company have some claim over the copyright of the finished product?

Furthermore, if an artist wants to sell IP ownership of his work then there's no reason he shouldn't be free to do so.

Your main point, however, is a good one. Disruptive distribution channels should be able to fix this by allowing artists to make good money without selling out to big media companies.

I could not disagree more. If someone creates a work of art, they only own the physical manifestation of that creation. They can guard that physical manifestation, thereby preventing its release into the public domain until such a time as it may profit them. What they do not own is other people's property, so to force other people to not do with their property what they please simply because someone else had a thought first is unethical. It's an understandable, knee-jerk, brute-force means of providing a business model to artists, but it is still unethical.

Find. Another. Way.

And in short you deny artists of ownership of anything else than the physical representation (unethical!) But in the next sentence you make the creation "other people's property". If I think of something you did not, this robs me of rights and automatically gives entitlement to you?

I'm trying very hard to avoid an ad-hominem, but I wonder how many people who espouse this "everything should be free" mindset actually create stuff and hurt themselves with this argument. Even software developers who strictly write software for other people benefit from copyright in a work-for-hire arrangement.

With Steam, you're still paying a one-time fee to purchase a license to use the software.

However your creation manifests itself. A live performance or the physical media of a recording, for example.

> Because as soon as I make a record I have to "guard that physical manifestation" ... how?

The same way you guard your other possessions: with a lock and a door.

> you make the creation "other people's property"

The physical manifestation. The matter, as it were.

> If I think of something you did not this robs me of rights and automatically gives entitlement to you?

If you come up with an idea, it is yours to guard. If you communicate this idea, then you cannot ethically use force to prevent others from acting upon it. I do not believe I am robbing you of any right, because I do not believe that information can be property - only the physical manifestation of information (the media) can be property.

The fundamental point is that I don't think that you have a right to make a living as an artist. If you can find a way to get people to pay you for it, that's great. Just don't take away people's rights in the process.

It's the same in software. I'd love to be able to get paid for every little thing I ever wrote, but that's not reality. I only get paid for things that can be packaged into some kind of product, something with a business model where people feel like paying me.

Copyright is one of the things that allows artists to get in a position to go on the road and do these shows.

Or maybe someone wants to make a film, so she hires a music writer for the score.

I see the value of copyright (or other intellectual property protection, such as the "terms of use" I mentioned above) in this case, for two reasons.

First, the value for the creative doesn't scale. Suppose a conductor commissioned some music to be written for six summer evening performances. How should the music writer value the work to be written? The negotiations would probably consider how much revenue the performances will generate, and result in a (presumably) fair compensation for the writer.

But suppose the conductor, after the piece has been written, uses the it for eight performances? Or switches to a much larger venue that generates much more revenue? If you don't allow for a way for the writer to be fairly compensated you run the risk of not being able to attract good writers to the field. We could argue that geniuses and top talent would still be there, but it would be difficult for merely talented to make a living (or for the unknown to start out).

The second reason I see is to protect the reputation of the writer. John Williams is a brilliant composer who has written some of the best and most-recognizable movie themes. He wrote, for instance, the theme for the movie "Jaws."

Suppose someone took his music and used it as a soundtrack for a movie that he found very distasteful (a porno, or a movie advocating the rise of the Aryan Nation, for example). He would then be associated with these other ideas, even against his will. You could argue that his ability to use music to conjure emotions could be used to rally people for causes with which he vehemently disagrees. Copyright can help protect against that (but can't completely stop it, of course).

Write a song for Metallica? Sell it to them in exchange for some amount of cash up front, and partial ownership in the company that is selling that particular album/single/whatever.

Clumsy perhaps, but if big money is involved the overhead should be minimal.

Now I wouldn't cry if the era of multi-million-dollar entertainers is over, but I think that it would be a mistake to throw all copyright out. Rework it maybe, but keep the idea that mental creations are assets just like physical creations are. The concept of copyright arose because there appeared to be a need to protect those rights when that protection was absent, so I would be very hesitant to throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes time to reexamine our IP laws.

For me, the SOPA/PIPA issue is about due process. Taking a site offline can be damaging in ways that may be hard to quantify, so the standard of proof should be pretty high IMO.

[1] - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3468027

-

Work-for-hire is a concept that, sure, can work in some cases. It does not solve the problem of the development of significant, large-scale creative works--and making it economically viable to do so. As I've said elsewhere in this comment tree, I find it extremely unlikely that one will fund a Half-Life or a Skyrim through Kickstarter. Can you honestly and with good faith say that you consider it more reasonably feasible for projects to raise multiple millions of dollars on a Kickstarter-esque platform than for private investiture to take the risk of profitability on such a project?

You tell us to "use our imagination" to defend your argument for you. I reject this: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and while I don't expect that you have extraordinary evidence, more than handwaving would be nice. How are large-scale creative works made economically feasible to produce in this utopic world without copyright? To the best of my knowledge, even open-source game projects have never managed this. You can bring up a Wesnoth or something, but the coherence of the game experience is poor at best and for the most part these games simply fail to credibly measure up to the focused, designed experiences of the aforementioned commercial titles. The argument of "settle for Wesnoths" doesn't ring true to me.

Were I to assume bad faith, as you so regularly seem to do (really, you're among the more abusive regular posters here, I'm kind of surprised you get away with it), I would charge that you lack respect for creatives and seem content for them to subsist off the inconsistently extant angels of consumers' better natures. But instead I would rather assume good faith and expect you to have some sort of insight into this world that you imply would be superior. So, put up or shut up.

Similarly, dhimes claiming to not know how a work for hire business plan for a song writer could work strains credibility. Hence my snark.

If you honestly believe the answer is not trivial, then feel free to respond to fabjan above.

I have responded briefly to your Valve Software point here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3481338

These threshold pledge systems all have the weakness that the work must be paid for up front, after which (since one assumes a lack of copyright) the work is public domain. In some ways this may not actually be a weakness, though; it transforms users into investors, making them say, "I would like something that does / has X and Y, and I would be willing to pay $Z to get it." Of course, this system does not entail any per-copy price... however, nowadays the cost to create a copy of something is approaching zero anyway. Does it really make sense to continue to charge a per-copy fee? Charging a subscription fee, however, would still be possible in many circumstances, if a service was actually being offered.

What are your thoughts on such systems?

It's serendipitous that you bring this up, as I am currently working on a startup that uses this very method!

Hit me back at the address in my profile, if you would.

Today, I can self-bootstrap by making smaller games and building up cash reserves, if I want. Or I can put away some money in my day job, like I am now, to actually build what I want to build and what I think will be well-received and make more value back for me than the money and time I'll need to sink into it to create it. Why would I risk my own money, and that much time, in a system where I'll get nothing back for it? (Subscription services are not a solution; not every game is World of Warcraft, and I'd argue that none should be.)

"I'm going to need $100,000 (or, for something where you'd actually have to hire multiple people, $X,000,000) to make a video game."

"Yeah, right. Don't let the door hit you on the way out."

While I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, every rebuttal to this I've ever seen requires a lot of handwaving and an assumption of active and knowledgeable participation on the part of end consumers. To be honest, I don't expect investor-level behavior out of consumers; I expect a lot of yelling about how something is X when they "already paid for" something very slightly but to them critically different than X, but not much in the way of useful, constructive development-centric criticism. It's not their bag.

While I acknowledge that it doesn't seem to make economic sense, I have a great deal of respect for how people seem to be actually behaving. True nobodies can raise six figures on Kickstarter right now. I can only imagine what would happen if a somebody tried.

If Valve put HL3 on Kickstarter, might they raise the necessary funds? I kinda think they might.

Valve, with the original Half-Life didn't come completely out of nowhere, but it was pretty close. I am confident enough to say that it wouldn't have happened if they had to use a Kickstarter clone. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but I can't think of a case where a creative work running, say, $5,000,000 (which is a moderate movie budget, if you have examples from that medium) was pre-funded by a crowd of consumers (i.e., excluding patronage, which I think most would agree is not a desirable model to return to) as opposed to profit-seeking investors.

The recent success of numerous "indy" games, smartphone app games, and in particular Zynga indicate to me that success in the market with a low budget (read: not making 'AAA games') is still not only feasible, but common.

But the issue is how to do so without the ability to extract money from an "easily copied" work--that is, how to make it economically viable without copyright protections on the published end result. I find it unlikely that in this idealized no-copyright world, it is economically viable to devote a lot of time to building something that requires significant multidisciplinary effort (also read as "cash outlay for things you can't do yourself") with a relatively small investment up-front.

I find it likely that the Kickstarter/creatives-as-contractors model would end up not being worth my time, nor that of probably most people on HN; spending my time stumping for donations that barely cover production costs (else people ask why you aren't doing it for barely enough to cover production costs, why you're keeping "so much" in order to do those "eating" and "paying for gas" and "sleeping under a roof" things). Somebody else is more likely to pay me well enough to live--subsisting off the angels of consumers' better natures does not strike me as a winning proposition.

With copyright protections, it becomes economically plausible (not a guaranteed success, but plausible) for me to spend my time making something, even sinking my own money into it, because of the conviction that enough people will like it that I'll make back my nut and turn a profit as well. Y'know--capitalism.

And I find it extremely unlikely that those 'AAA titles'--which, as it happens, are often really really spectacularly good--would exist at all. Which would be a grievous, grievous shame. Skyrim is a beautiful game. Loads of fun, but more than that--just beautifully crafted.

-

Alternatives such as Zynga are, to me, unpalatable, and are the "Facebook monstrosities" to which I referred elsewhere in this thread. Freemium games offer a terrible user experience and subscription games almost as bad. They may make a lot of money, but while I've talked a lot about economic viability in this thread, I do still have a vested interest in making great stuff. Making money and building great stuff are more at odds in the freemium and subscription models than in the more standard, "buy a license, play it" model.

It is my thought however that the harm done to society by these industries becoming diminished would be vastly outweighed by the positive aspects. We'll likely have to agree to disagree there.

-

"Alternatives such as Zynga are, to me, unpalatable"

Oh trust me... I have no argument there.

Transaction costs include legal stuff, distribution, and advertising. The later is probably the largest block. There's only a very small minority who likes to engage in the creation of works. The majority just wants to be entertained. For this, they need signals of quality, and the perceivable amount of advertising is such a signal.

But, let's look at it from another direction. Simplify the tax code enough and H&R block goes out of business. That does not mean society is worse off. Copyright enriches artists at the cost of society but the real question is society bettor off. There is a deluge of new content, but the overwhelming majority truly interesting works are not for profit. I honestly think we would be bettor off if Avatar had never been created an instead we what artists do when they are not pandering to the largest audience possible.

PS: I don't listen to music. I don't watch TV. I do occasionally see a movie, but it's been a while. I used to do a fair amount of reading but I literally only follow a single author who I would just as soon donate to to keep them writing as buy their books. I do play WoW, but that's a subscription game which would survive just fine without copyright.

I'm not sure about this. Copyright is aimed at enabling and encouraging creative works. It achieves this by giving the creator control. Here, the word giving is important; we only give the creator control because we think that will result in more high quality creative works (in theory).

>When people propose that copyright be abolished, they are saying, if effect, that anybody who produces a creative work immediately forfeits any right to control it.

Instead, they are saying that they no longer want to give away control to the creator, because copyright is not achieving the desired results.

>To defeat SOPA, though, one must affirm copyright.

Agreed. However, I think it's easier to discuss the goals, benefits, and extent of copyright law from the vantage point I've expressed above.

Two wrongs don't make a right; saying the service isn't good enough is a cheap excuse. Pirates should articulate what they do pay for, not what (they say) they would pay for. Talk is cheap, distribution and marketing do have costs associated with them.

Edit: my point is to defend the basic idea of copyright and content distribution as an economic good, rather to support any particular distribution model or SOPA itself. Coming from a film background, it costs a great deal of money to bring a high-quality film to the screen, and to reliably recoup that investment, distributors usually spend 50% of the film's budget on marketing. Films are sort of like startups insofar as each one is a little self-contained business, and the same is true of alnums, TV shows etc., but discussion of the economics from the content production side is often sorely lacking in debates about piracy.

1. Why is copyright so important if everyone can create well? Why scarcify something that without the protection would be worthless? If creation is humanity, why limit the act of creation to the first person to get there? We don't prevent people from climbing mountains just because someone else got there first. We don't stop runners from finishing races because someone else got first place. We don't stop fashion, because brands copy each other's styles all the time (trademark issues are related, but really different here... no one complains when Gap puts out a line similar to say Tommy Hilfiger, as long as they claim it is Gap). In fact a large number of creative works are merely derivative of other works, even "brilliant new" ones -- any limit on the creation process in this regard can be seen as artificially scarcifying something.

2. Why respond to an article about why the current copyright situation is broken and needs change with a long rant that defends the need for copyright, and uses language seemingly arguing against some strawman position of "abolish copyright" that is not present in the original article.

I'm certain this is just wrong, at least from a USA perspective. The first copyright in England was to control, that is, copyright is censorship.

In the USA historically copyright was a way to induce people to enlarge the public domain.

Giving "creative" people control has never really entered into it, in the USA. I'm given to understand this is different in continental Europoean cultures, but SOPA and PIPA are American, and based out of an English-speaking culture.

If you propose to add some kind of "moral right of control" to a "creative" work, you first need to define "creative work" so that I can tell a creative work from an un-creative work without referring to some authority, a list or an oracle or a government agent. Then we can discuss what moral rights might pertain, and how long they should last, etc etc. I personally think that the prevalence of independent invention invalidates any such "moral right of control", but you clearly believe otherwise.

Actually, the US Constitution only allows for limited control, not unlimited control. The Constitution requires Fair Use exceptions to your control of your created works.

That is a less extreme change than that from Plessy vs Ferguson to Brown vs the Board of Education, for example. And a good case can be made for freedom of speech trumping copyright; the Constitutional argument for copyright is a practical one for "encouraging" the advance of arts and sciences; eternal copyright has already undercut that argument.

And a total mastery of the art of understatement, clearly. Thank you for your contributions to this community, I am humbled by your continued willingness to invest time to improve it and your success at doing so.

You're a good writer, both in the technical and moral sense; and I respect your experience, ability, and goals. However, there is no creation ex nihilo. I can't remember who said this, so I use it without attribution: would the world of music be richer today if, in 1900, one could copyright a bassline?

< When people propose that copyright be abolished...

This isn't what the linked piece is about. The author's arguments are mainstays like:

1) IP laws mostly protect big corporations, not creators, since these corporations effectively leverage their control of distribution against creators.

2) The measures these corporations take to protect their IP succeed only at annoying legitimate customers. Piracy has never been curbed by anti-piracy practices.

3) Et al.

Abolishing an exploitative industry that preys on copyright holders and abolishing copyright itself are two very different things.

To me, a reasonable system would be to authorize everything, provided you give proper attribution. You can copy, but name the author. You can parody or plagiarize, but you have to say so. That way, we keep a right to recognition, at nearly zero cost to society. I think this is both morally acceptable, and economically feasible.

As you can do in a society without copyright--that is your personal decision. Copyright is not required for you to do what you will with your stuff.

Or I can let others use it freely but only on if they meet some condition that I impose on it, such as giving me attribution. The point is that this is my decision.

It isn't, though, as we've shown empirically by this point. You cannot stop--physically, legally, or morally--others from doing with your work as they will, provided it exists in a digital form. That genie, as they say, is long since out of the bottle.

If copyright does not exist, though, I have no such rights and I have no such control.

You already have next to no control! Your "rights" are anything but!

In that case, anybody can use it, replicate it, seek to profit from it, claim it as his own, or whatever, all without my having any say whatever in that process.

Why do you need a say? If it's information, it can be duplicated on their dime, and that is their decision. Why need you be involved?

Moreover, why does it matter if it is claimed as their own? It will eventually be found out and publicized if it really matters--or maybe you and your work aren't important enough to merit society's collective memory.

In such a system, anything created by anybody is simply common property. People can use it for good or for bad but I have no say in it.

Yep, that's about the size of it.

I may be the creator but that is beside the point. People like the author of this piece can simply saunter by and take it for whatever use the like.

And isn't that a wonderful thing? That people can build on and reuse the work of those that came before them? That they can do so without fear of reprisal and instead devote that energy to innovation?

Why are you afraid of such a communal future?

Why are you afraid of the removing artificial scarcity?

EDIT: Removed potentially inflammatory leader.

Rights are a legal limitation on the actions of others, not a physical limitation. They exist to limit people from doing what they otherwise "can" do to you in the physical world.

You have physical property rights so people cannot enter your home when you are at work and take your television. That is enforced through the law not the Fort Knox security that you might have.

If you have travelled to countries without rule of law you will understand what it means in practice when this right is not strong. Fences, security guards, and metal cages inside your house in every middle class home.

The rights we're talking about here are not able to be compared to physical property rights because there is no mutual exclusion of access.

If somebody steals my physical property, I can't use it, therefore they've harmed me and limited my actions. For knowledge, IP, etc. they cannot limit my access or permission, so I do not need to be put up guards.

My core argument, I guess, is this: There is no reason to have copyright because it is effectively unenforcable and because it has no real-world grounding. Moreover, it props up an economic model that fails in exposure to modern distribution methods.

Another rough equivalent to criminally using without depleting physical goods is someone who breaks into your house to sleep in your bed while you are on vacation. Even if they are clean, and the bed remains the same afterwards for all reasonable inspection, they have trespassed on your property and guilty of a crime.

Is it really that bad if somebody who needs a bed uses mine without permission while it lies unused, provided it isn't harmed and is returned to its initial condition?

We're big about virtualization and the cloud and shared hosting, right?

Why not consider something similar for worldly goods? It seems awfully inefficient, with 7 billion people, for everyone to have a unique, untouchable copy of everything.

Exactly. It's YOUR choice to allow someone to let themselves in when you aren't home and take a nap. BTW, can you post your address and schedule? Just in case anyone reading this thread needs a place to crash for a few hours.

Giving me the right to not have strangers wander into my house while I'm gone does nothing to prevent you from letting strangers wander into your house. By making it ok for people to wander into my house without my permission, you obliterate my property rights.

I think parking is a similar problem at a similar societal cost. People need to park. If you provide no way to park legally, they will park illegally to get on with their business. And indeed, fines for piracy, like fines for parking infractions, and a better distribution model from the market, like enough parking lots, have been a winning solution.