Well put. Ditto, say, a game developer. "Find another way" is great and all for games, if you want a bunch of Facebook monstrosities welded into an always-online authentication framework (or equivalent systems). "But you can sell a version with physical stuff that people want" is similarly silly - I'm not a model-maker or a map-maker, I write software and I'm not going to write software if the only way to make a living off of it is to sell tchotchkes. (And, without meaningful copyright, it's easy to duplicate whatever that thing is and sell it as if it were 'official' anyway.)

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.

"if you want a bunch of Facebook monstrosities welded into an always-online authentication framework" Is Steam such a system? If so, give me more of that, Steam is awesome, and proof that people will buy stuff if the original is better than the pirated copy.

Steam is awesome, sure. I buy all my PC games on Steam, and if it's not on Steam I won't even consider it. But I was thinking more along the lines of "freemium" or subscription-based software, neither of which I want anything to do with.

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

> What "physical manifestation" are you talking about?

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.

What do you think about, for example, Creative Commons attribution licenses? Is it just for creators of informational works to allow the public to redistribute them only if they receive attribution for their work? Or is making any demands whatsoever with respect to redistribution not a right that the creator should have?

People have made music for thousands of years. We've only been able to record it for 135. I don't think music would go away if you suddenly had the ability to record it but not to prevent others from copying the recording. As far as I can tell, you can't stop teenagers from forming rock bands. Music will survive.

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.

Shows. Performances.

When exactly are you supposed to do these shows and performances if you have a day job?

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

In many cases the writer is not the performer. What for them?

Work for hire can exist without copyright you know.

What would the business model be in this case?

Someone writes music and sells it to someone who wants to play it.

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

Would you replace copyright with "terms of use" or something in a contract with the performer?

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).

If it were really necessary (though I am unconvinced that it is) a royalty system could likely be emulated in a society with no copyright with contract and corporate law.

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.

The problem with selling to Metallica is that you are selling something that you don't "own." Said another way, the value changes when you can offer exclusivity. It'll be worth less to the company producing the music if someone else can (legally) take the music also.

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.

Use your imagination.

Spoken like somebody who doesn't have an answer. It's okay to admit that. But given that you generally seem more interested in calling people "insane" and telling people to go fuck themselves[1] than having an honest conversation, I am unsurprised at your behavior.

[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.

If you seriously think I don't know how a work for hire business plan could work, then I have to stand by my assertion that you are in fact a troll.

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