NationStates Jolt Archive

One of these is often a product of the other. Look at the artists that have put up their work for free with an optional fee of some sort. They make tons of money off of the deal because most people, if they like something, do still want to own it - and they'll pay for it.

But, due to the way organizations like the RIAA have handled these things (when they really should have jumped in and made the technology profitable from the start), many people have no respect for them.

Indeed. I think with the technological revolution that we are still in the middle of, we need to realize that the systems we have right now are out of date, and we need to find new models-- models like the one here mentioned.


Unfortunately, musicians have rarely had those powers to exercise over their creative work. Those powers have generally gone to huge corporations who routinely screw the musicians out of getting anything - and stand in their way if they choose to try something new in distributing their work.*

Luckily, with all of the digital technology available now, artists are much more able to put out and control their own work, rather than relying on such corporations.

*Even though these new tactics work. The last NIN album became a bestseller, despite the fact that most of it could be obtained though a perfectly free download. Why? Because people wanted to own the hardcopy. They wanted the full version. And Trent Reznor is good to his fans - which means they want to be good to him as well (and they know that he owns his own stuff - so the money really does go to him).

And this is an excellent illustration of the point. Further, he tries to help out other artists so that they can get to the point where they are in a position to do the same. I think the industry could learn a lot by looking at NIN and try to base a new distribution model off of what Trent's done.


I got a kick out of it when I found out that theirs was one of the only 3 songs that couldn't be transferred from Rock Band I into Rock Band II.

I recently heard an interview with Lars Ulrich where he was talking about thinking that games like Rock Band and Guitar Hero were good for the industry because he watched his son getting introduced to all of these songs that he had loved when he was younger and really enjoying them. He thought it was a great way to get the music out there to a new audience. And I was thinking, "FINALLY! HE GETS IT!"

And then Metallica refused to allow the song they had on Rock Band I to be transferred onto Rock Band II. This means that it really isn't going to be introduced to any new audiences anymore. No one who has a copy of RBII is going to stick RBI back in their machine. So I guess he hasn't really gotten it after all.

Well, if I thought I could grab a few easy achievements I might pop RBI back in, but... yeah. The point stands.

It's not about making me feel better, it's about accuracy, and trying to claim everyone that violates copyright is a thief is just dumb. I can see where it comes into it on people making money on others works, but for this it doesn't.

again, I suppose for a matter of technical accuracy it doesn't make them thieves.

It still makes them lawbreakers, however.

Roughly, absolutely nothing. I do actually own CDs/Vinyls (all of which are second hand) for approximately 25% of my music. However, it is difficult for me seeing as I don't have an actual job, and I'm a high school student. Not the kind of people known for their high levels of income.
So 75% of your music collection has been stolen, then.

See post #206 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14494568&postcount=206) on the theft thing.
I did see it, but I ignored it because it's bullshit, as has been amply explained in the whole rest of the thread. Also, see post 247:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14494738&postcount=247

Well, apparently Murayvets disagrees with you. However, your analogy doesn't even apply the digital distribution as it is, its like the baker makes a pie and leaves it out to cool, and you make an exact copy of the pie, the baker loses nothing but the profit he could've made off you.

Ahhh Murayvets, and I often disagree, in fact it quite shocked me last week when we did agree on summit.

Okay, so I agree it didnt quite work. However 'The baker loses nothing but the profit he could've made off you' is still a loss of earning though isn't it?

A musician has his income from record sales and gigs. And yes okay it seems a good idea to me to hand out some free records for promotional purposes, but as you admit that eat's into your profit huh.

What's the term when you deny somebody a piece of their rightfull earnings?

It's not a matter of "losing". That's just a cheap argument pirates use to justify their illegal activities. Maybe in YOUR case you download music that you wouldn't otherwise afford.

But there are people, lots of people, who do download music simply because they don't want to buy it, though they could. The law can not afford to go into some balancing act trying to determine where it's legal and where it's not. It's illegal.

"loses" is a question for damages. It does not speak to the actual illegality of the act.

Post #245 - People who download more are more likely to buy CDs.

There is of course that element, but there are people that will always be like that and are just plain hypocrites.

It's not about making me feel better, it's about accuracy, and trying to claim everyone that violates copyright is a thief is just dumb. I can see where it comes into it on people making money on others works, but for this it doesn't.
Violating copyright is illegal all by itself.

Taking something that is for sale but not paying for it is theft.

Two separate acts, both illegal in their own ways.

And people still, despite Metallica's BS, still downlaod their music for free.

Some do. A lot of people just ignore them altogether, though.

And, unlike the people who had complete access to free music at the NIN site but still chose to buy the CD, you won't see many fans doing that for Metallica.

Is it the right thing to do? Probably not. But the truth of the matter is that the entertainment industry is a back-and-forth arrangement. If the fans don't like you, it may not matter how good your work is, they aren't going to want to buy it.


But there are people, lots of people, who do download music simply because they don't want to buy it, though they could. The law can not afford to go into some balancing act trying to determine where it's legal and where it's not. It's illegal.

There are also millions of people who could download music for free - perfectly legally - and still go out and buy it.

The legal rights of artists and corporations are their rights - but those are subject to change. And, given the fact that people in my generation tend to see file sharing as a crime no worse than speeding (which isn't exactly up there), they very well might. So artists who really want to make it need to be exploring ways to use this technology to their advantage. Those who do so have, so far, been pretty damn successful.

Post #245 - People who download more are more likely to buy CDs.

Which is, of course, irrelevant to the fact that their download is still illegal. I'll also posit that correlation isn't an element of causation here. Perhaps people who download, and go through the effort (and risk) of downloading like music a lot, and thus, as a subset of a sample, are more likely to purchase than the average consumer.

So 75% of your music collection has been stolen, then.


I did see it, but I ignored it because it's bullshit, as has been amply explained in the whole rest of the thread. Also, see post 247:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14494738&postcount=247

If it's bullshit, then I suppose the courts consider it so, and that means most cases of copyright violation are accompanied by theft charges? I didn't think so.

...or how ridiculous they are. Some background; Intellectual Property is a monopoly on artistic creations, such as music, films, etc. Since the rise of the digital age piracy has been considered a problem by the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America, and they've accordingly targetted people they've considered so, often leveraging courts into making defendants pay insane amounts for relatively innocuous amounts of "stolen" (never mind that defition doesn't fit with digital replication).

Focusing on music and movies, what does General think about the enforcement of these (civil) laws in court by the RIAA and MPAA?

Some links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA#Efforts_against_copyright_infringement
http://consumerist.com/consumer/worst-company-in-america/riaa-wins-worst-company-in-america-2007-245235.php
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96797,00.html

What is truly ridiculous is to eschew the entire concept of intellectual property because (1) you like illegal downloads and/or (2) you dislike some efforts by the RIAA.

I'm not going to bother wading through this whole thread to deal with the usual drivel that passes as arguments against intellectual property.

I will supply some more informative links re U.S. copyright, patent, and trademark law:

Copyright Basics (pdf) (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf)
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about Copyright (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/)
Taking the Mystery Out of Copyright (for students and teachers) (http://www.loc.gov/teachers/copyrightmystery/)
About Patents (http://www.uspto.gov/main/patents.htm)
General Information Concerning Patents (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/index.html)
Basic Facts about Trademarks (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/)


One fact that may be of interest: The U.S. Constitution expressly provides for intellectual property law in Article I, Sec. 8, Clause 8:

The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

See also Findlaw annotations (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/39.html#1)

EDIT: Kudos to those brave souls that are defending these concepts against the barbaric horde. ;)

It's not about making me feel better, it's about accuracy, and trying to claim everyone that violates copyright is a thief is just dumb. I can see where it comes into it on people making money on others works, but for this it doesn't.

So withholding payment for produce is not theft?

The legal rights of artists and corporations are their rights - but those are subject to change. And, given the fact that people in my generation tend to see file sharing as a crime no worse than speeding (which isn't exactly up there), they very well might.

subject to change, by the legislature, yes. Until then, however, they haven't. And until such change ocurs, those who do engage in impermissible filesharing are breaking the law.

Much like those who speed are breaking the law. Even if you don't THINK you are really breaking the law when you speed, that argument won't fly with the cop who just pulled you over.

Ahhh Murayvets, and I often disagree, in fact it quite shocked me last week when we did agree on summit.

Okay, so I agree it didnt quite work. However 'The baker loses nothing but the profit he could've made off you' is still a loss of earning though isn't it?

A musician has his income from record sales and gigs. And yes okay it seems a good idea to me to hand out some free records for promotional purposes, but as you admit that eat's into your profit huh.

What's the term when you deny somebody a piece of their rightfull earnings?

Depends, but it certainly isn't thievery.

As provided before, the evidence points to the more people that get "promotional" copies via P2P, the more that buy actual copies.

I'm sure you could if you had a machine that replicated a Ferrari, and in that case, since you couldn't afford a Ferrari, the company loses nothing, do they?

The company probably loses a bit of prestige but yeah, that's not a huge deal.

The problem comes when you don't have the money but could if you saved up or went without something else. Or do have the money but would rather just not spend it.

Eventually no one buys a Ferrari, no Ferraris are made and cars never move forward.

Kids used to deliver papers and sell fast food in order to buy albums. No one does that today.

So withholding payment for produce is not theft?

No. Theft is taking something that somebody already had in their possession. I'm sure that is covered elsewhere under the law though, but as I've said, I'm not aware with people being charged with anything but violation.

Some do. A lot of people just ignore them altogether, though.

Indeed. My brother used to be a huge fan until the group became so idiotic. Now, not even for free would he listen to Metallica.

And, unlike the people who had complete access to free music at the NIN site but still chose to buy the CD, you won't see many fans doing that for Metallica.

Yeah, after their attitude it's expected.

Is it the right thing to do? Probably not. But the truth of the matter is that the entertainment industry is a back-and-forth arrangement. If the fans don't like you, it may not matter how good your work is, they aren't going to want to buy it.

Agreed.

Intellectual property laws need to exist in order to make creative actions profitable, so that artists need not starve by deriving financial benefit from their labor. As a result of the changes related to digital propagation of information and the increasing non-exclusivity of the intellectual product, there should of course be limits (specifically a cut-off date) on intellectual property rights, but they should exist and be protected.

Sorry, bad excerpting skills on my part.
That's better, but it goes back to my point that this is a two-pronged problem.

On the one prong is the corporations too greedy to see that, by giving away a little, they'll be able to sell more.

On the other prong are those consumers who will always refuse to pay for anything. They are a minority of consumers, but there are enough of them hurt the arts and entertainment industries.

The company probably loses a bit of prestige but yeah, that's not a huge deal.

The problem comes when you don't have the money but could if you saved up or went without something else. Or do have the money but would rather just not spend it.

Eventually no one buys a Ferrari, no Ferraris are made and cars never move forward.

Kids used to deliver papers and sell fast food in order to buy albums. No one does that today.

Yeah, those damned kids are just spending it on booze and condoms! How unexpected!

If it's bullshit, then I suppose the courts consider it so, and that means most cases of copyright violation are accompanied by theft charges? I didn't think so.

I recommend you stop mixing your terminology. The crime you're refering to is "larceny". Generally there is no crime of "theft". Theft, as a concept, is an omnibus term that encompasses several legally distinct crimes such as larceny, grand larceny, carjacking, robbery, extortion, blackmail, larceny by trick, embezzelment, uttering (my favorite, the "crime of uttering") and, some might classify it as such, intellectual property violations.

There's no "crime of theft". Theft is a broad catagory that defines numerous seperate and distinct crimes. They're not "accompanied by theft charges" because theft is not a crime, it's a broad catagory of several different crimes.

<snippity>

How dare you inject law, logic, and reason into an intellectual property thread! I demand you cease and desist immediately, and begin yelling incoherently.

No. Theft is taking something that somebody already had in their possession. I'm sure that is covered elsewhere under the law though, but as I've said, I'm not aware with people being charged with anything but violation.

no, that would be larceny.

That's better, but it goes back to my point that this is a two-pronged problem.

On the one prong is the corporations too greedy to see that, by giving away a little, they'll be able to sell more.

On the other prong are those consumers who will always refuse to pay for anything. They are a minority of consumers, but there are enough of them hurt the arts and entertainment industries.

If there is always a core, it'll always happen, and they'll find someway around it, for example it used to be recording songs off the radio. I don't see punishing many for the actions of few as a fair thing to do.

subject to change, by the legislature, yes. Until then, however, they haven't. And until such change ocurs, those who do engage in impermissible filesharing are breaking the law.

Much like those who speed are breaking the law. Even if you don't THINK you are really breaking the law when you speed, that argument won't fly with the cop who just pulled you over.

Oh, I don't dispute any of that. I just think that, in the end, people who are fighting so hard against these technologies are fighting a losing battle.

They should have jumped in early and used these technologies to their advantage. They should be looking for new models. Instead, they're suing grandmothers who probably don't have a clue how to download music because their grandkids put Kazaa or something on their computers.

Legally, they aren't doing anything wrong, but from a business model standpoint, I think they're really going to lose out.

No. Theft is taking something that somebody already had in their possession. I'm sure that is covered elsewhere under the law though, but as I've said, I'm not aware with people being charged with anything but violation.

And what do you think intellectual property is? Something someone created and has under his/her possession.

no, that would be larceny.

So why aren't they being charged with it?

No. Theft is taking something that somebody already had in their possession. I'm sure that is covered elsewhere under the law though, but as I've said, I'm not aware with people being charged with anything but violation.

So if I walked into a shop, took a CD and refused to pay that is not theft? Or if I downloaded music and did not pay that is not theft?

I dunno, they both look the same to me. Unless of course you want to argue that the medium makes the differance?

subject to change, by the legislature, yes. Until then, however, they haven't. And until such change ocurs, those who do engage in impermissible filesharing are breaking the law.

Much like those who speed are breaking the law. Even if you don't THINK you are really breaking the law when you speed, that argument won't fly with the cop who just pulled you over.
There is a difference between thinking that what you are doing is okay and you should be allowed to do it, and thinking that what you are doing is legal. People tend to blur that distinction.

Reminds me of something my mom mentioned in passing this morning. She was telling me about a novel she's reading in which the main character talks about the need to keep reminding people about right and wrong, because without regular reminders, people will tend to think just of what's good for them and decide that it's the right thing to do.

Strawman. Kindly show me where I or anyone else in this thread has advocated perpetual copyright.
Debating the entailment of an argument isn't a strawman.

Rain in the fallacy-meter, Mura.

And what do you think intellectual property is? Something someone created and has under his/her possession.

"Products of the mind, ideas (eg, books, music, computer software, designs, technological know-how). "

And?

No. Theft is taking something that somebody already had in their possession. I'm sure that is covered elsewhere under the law though, but as I've said, I'm not aware with people being charged with anything but violation.
So it is your contention that the pie maker did not have the recipe in his possession?

So if I walked into a shop, took a CD and refused to pay that is not theft? Or if I downloaded music and did not pay that is not theft?

I dunno, they both look the same to me. Unless of course you want to argue that the medium makes the differance?

Of course the medium makes a difference! It's what makes the first example theft, and the second example not theft.

"Products of the mind, ideas (eg, books, music, computer software, designs, technological know-how). "

And?

So, the creations of the mind aren't property of those who created them? Harry Potter is the intellectual property of JK Rowlings, is it not? It is in her possession, is it not? So, if someone steals it and claims it for his/her won, isn't that stealing? Same as me stealing your ring or your money? It is.

I recommend you stop mixing your terminology. The crime you're refering to is "larceny". Generally there is no crime of "theft". Theft, as a concept, is an omnibus term that encompasses several legally distinct crimes such as larceny, grand larceny, carjacking, robbery, extortion, blackmail, larceny by trick, embezzelment, uttering (my favorite, the "crime of uttering") and, some might classify it as such, intellectual property violations.

There's no "crime of theft". Theft is a broad catagory that defines numerous seperate and distinct crimes. They're not "accompanied by theft charges" because theft is not a crime, it's a broad catagory of several different crimes.
Oh, please, Neo, I started with this person by asking a question about copyright and being answered with a quote from patent law (from France, 1791). And when I objected I was told it falls under the "umbrella of IP". Of course cars and ships all fall under the umbrella of "vehicles", but that doesn't mean you can drive from NY to London.

If O-O-O didn't mix his terminology, he would have no argument.

If there is always a core, it'll always happen, and they'll find someway around it, for example it used to be recording songs off the radio. I don't see punishing many for the actions of few as a fair thing to do.
Only the many are not being punished, are they? The many PAY for the things they want, and they get them. Only the minority who want their shit for free suffer for their greed.

So, the creations of the mind aren't property of those who created them? Harry Potter is the intellectual property of JK Rowlings, is it not? It is in her possession, is it not? So, if someone steals it and claims it for his/her won, isn't that stealing? Same as me stealing your ring or your money? It is.

Not if I had the ability to make many copies of the ring, and then sell them to the general public. And if someone in the general public got the ability to make copies of the ring, and gives one to a friend.

Harry Potter is the intellectual property of JK Rowlings, is it not? It is in her possession, is it not? So, if someone steals it and claims it for his/her won, isn't that stealing? Same as me stealing your ring or your money? It is.
First, that's begging the question of whether using another's intellectual property is stealing.

More importantly, under the sort of system I believe One-O-One's (vaguely) advocating, someone couldn't claim another's intellectual properety as theirs, for, by definition, intellectual property could not be owned.

Only the many are not being punished, are they? The many PAY for the things they want, and they get them. Only the minority who want their shit for free suffer for their greed.

BS, the ones being punished are anyone foolish enough to let the RIAA get a hold of their IP address. I know you aren't defending them or anything, but thats the most high profile copyright violation etc happening lately.

Not if I had the ability to make many copies of the ring, and then sell them to the general public. And if someone in the general public got the ability to make copies of the ring, and gives one to a friend.

Rings are material things, we're talking about Intellectual Property, by your OP.

So why aren't they being charged with it?

I was responding to this statement: "Theft is taking something that somebody already had in their possession." No, that's not theft, that's larceny.

My point is there is no "crime of theft'. Theft means, in a broad sense, taking that which was not freely and legally given.

Theft by the means of the taking and carrying away of another's personal property without permission is theft effectuated through the crime of larceny.

Theft by the means of the use or threat to use force is theft effectuated through the crime of robbery.

Theft by means of converting property that one has legal control over for ones own personal use is theft effectuated through the crime of embezzelment.

Theft by means of passing off an invalid instrument as a valid one is theft effectuated through the crime of uttering.

Theft by means of gaining property through the threat to do that which one does not have the legal right to do is theft effectuated through the crime of extortion.

"theft" is not a crime, it's just a general term. Whether the use of digital downloading software to make a copy of a copyright work is theft by means of doing so, making it theft effectuated through violation of the millenium copyright act is...academic.

People aren't charged with "theft" because theft is not a crime. Larceny is a crime. Embezzelment is a crime. Robbery is a crime. Uttering is a crime.

Violating the digital millenium copyright act is a crime. Whether it constitutes "theft" or not, is, again, a semantics argument.

Debating the entailment of an argument isn't a strawman.

Rain in the fallacy-meter, Mura.
Do you think his point was valid? Do you think it is a valid argument to state that you are fighting against X, when nobody is promoting X? Do you think it is valid to bring up a situation that nobody is arguing, that is not part of the debate and that does not exist in reality, base your argument on that, and present it as if it is a counter to someone else's argument?

Anyway guys, it's been fun, but I have to get ready for school.

Y'know, where I'm coerced into creating intellectual property to prove my intelligence.

Of course the medium makes a difference! It's what makes the first example theft, and the second example not theft.
Are the songs for sale as digital downloads, offered by the people who own the copyright on them?

Of course the medium makes a difference! It's what makes the first example theft, and the second example not theft.

again, I suggest you stop using the term "theft" as if it has a legal meaning. It doesn't. It's not the crime of larceny, certainly, but many crimes do not meet the legal definition of larceny, and are still what we would consider "theft". Robbery, embezzelment, uttering, and others, for example.

Whether violation of copyright law constitutes theft is, as I said, a subjective argument, since "theft" has no strict definition under the law.

Not if I had the ability to make many copies of the ring, and then sell them to the general public. And if someone in the general public got the ability to make copies of the ring, and gives one to a friend.
I see, so your argument is that if you succeed in stealing from her, then you should be allowed to get away with that.

By the way, I would strongly suggest you don't actually try that with JK Rowling's intellectual property. She is vicious in protecting her copyright. Tangle with her, and you will learn and understand all the ways in which you are wrong.

First, that's begging the question of whether using another's intellectual property is stealing.

More importantly, under the sort of system I believe One-O-One's (vaguely) advocating, someone couldn't claim another's intellectual properety as theirs, for, by definition, intellectual property could not be owned.
Chumbly, did you read the thread? Because these points have already been addressed, and you might find something of substance to work with in the posts.

Do you think his point was valid? Do you think it is a valid argument to state that you are fighting against X, when nobody is promoting X? Do you think it is valid to bring up a situation that nobody is arguing, that is not part of the debate and that does not exist in reality, base your argument on that, and present it as if it is a counter to someone else's argument?

Just to jump in, not agreeing that all IP laws should be repealed entirely, but remodeled to fit new technologies and realities (though, for the record, I think the term "Intellectual Property" is inherently misleading because it groups together multiple types of law in an attempt to conflate them in the mind of the layman)-- you did say, as I recall, that copyright law should default to the most restrictive, so that the artist can then make the restrictions lighter if they want. But would not copyright of infinite duration be, strictly speaking, the most restrictive?

Or have I misunderstood your statement on that?

BS, the ones being punished are anyone foolish enough to let the RIAA get a hold of their IP address. I know you aren't defending them or anything, but thats the most high profile copyright violation etc happening lately.
Yeah, the thieves who get caught. It does suck to be them, doesn't it?

I see, so your argument is that if you succeed in stealing from her, then you should be allowed to get away with that.

It seems that he's suggesting exactly that.

Of course the medium makes a difference! It's what makes the first example theft, and the second example not theft.

Okay then is it theft if I walked into a shop and took a CD without paying?

If so, then it must be theft if I downloaded music without paying.

Why?

Because nobody every gets to purchase the original, all music on CD, Tape or Vynil that you buy is a copy of the original.

again, I suggest you stop using the term "theft" as if it has a legal meaning. It doesn't. It's not the crime of larceny, certainly, but many crimes do not meet the legal definition of larceny, and are still what we would consider "theft". Robbery, embezzelment, uttering, and others, for example.

What is uttering exactly? (don't mean to drag it off topic, just a quick question if you don't mind)

What is uttering exactly? (don't mean to drag it off topic, just a quick question if you don't mind)

uttering is the crime of knowingly passing off an invalid instrument as a valid one. For example, if you forge my signature as a check, that's forgery. if you then go to the bank and try to cash that check, passing it off as a valid one, that's uttering.

uttering is the crime of passing off an invalid instrument as a valid one. For example, if you forge my signature as a check, that's forgery. if you then go to the bank and try to cash that check, passing it off as a valid one, that's uttering.

Ah. Counterfeiting but not involving money. (except incidentally, as your example)

So why aren't they being charged with it?

For much the same reason that someone charged with armed robbery isn't also charged with larceny (or "theft").
See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_included_offense

edit: no wait, I'm wrong, you're right.

ehh, sorta. The analogy to counterfeiting is "forgery". Both forgery and counterfeiting involve the MAKING of a false document.

Uttering involves the actual act of passing off the known to be false document as real.

Gotcha. Thanks!

Just to jump in, not agreeing that all IP laws should be repealed entirely, but remodeled to fit new technologies and realities (though, for the record, I think the term "Intellectual Property" is inherently misleading because it groups together multiple types of law in an attempt to conflate them in the mind of the layman)--
No, actually, they are lumped together to make a convenient category for reference to a certain kind of legal practice specialization, within which there are sub-specialties.

you did say, as I recall, that copyright law should default to the most restrictive, so that the artist can then make the restrictions lighter if they want. But would not copyright of infinite duration be, strictly speaking, the most restrictive?

Or have I misunderstood your statement on that?
You did misunderstand because you failed to note all the other things I said around that statement. I do not post sentences in isolation from each other, especially within a post. I have made it clear, and I'll make it clear once more: I am referring to the existing copyright laws as being the strongest level of restriction, NOT some fantasy of what could possibly exist someday, somewhere, maybe, but does not actually exist in reality.

I argue from reality, not fantasy, and in reality, copyright is time limited.

Gotcha. Thanks!

actually, I edited, it appears counterfeiting is both the making and passing off as valid, false currency.

actually, I edited, it appears counterfeiting is both the making and passing off as valid, false currency.

Oh.

Well, lets go back to the check example. Forging your signature on your check for a million dollars would be forgery, but would taking it to the bank and trying to cash it be uttering, or would that still be considered part of forgery?

Oh.

Well, lets go back to the check example. Forging your signature on your check for a million dollars would be forgery, but would taking it to the bank and trying to cash it be uttering, or would that still be considered part of forgery?

no, that would be uttering.

No, actually, they are lumped together to make a convenient category for reference to a certain kind of legal practice specialization, within which there are sub-specialties.


You did misunderstand because you failed to note all the other things I said around that statement. I do not post sentences in isolation from each other, especially within a post. I have made it clear, and I'll make it clear once more: I am referring to the existing copyright laws as being the strongest level of restriction, NOT some fantasy of what could possibly exist someday, somewhere, maybe, but does not actually exist in reality.

I argue from reality, not fantasy, and in reality, copyright is time limited.

But why should existing sets of laws be given preference to hypothetical ones? Why should we use the strictest set of laws that have existed already? The fact that they've already been used does not, in my mind, make them better then hypothetical ones.

no, that would be uttering.

Ok, I think I understand.

Thanks - back to your regularly scheduled thread.

Do you think his point was valid?
Yes, obviously.

He's asking how far you'd take your stance that one's children have a right to earnings produced by one's intellectual property. That is neither an invalid question, nor a strawman.

Whether One-oh-One's position is a good one is up to debate, but musing on the logical conclusion of someone's argument is not a strawman; indeed, I don't see how it could be a strawman (unless the musing included a poor appraisal of the original position; but as One-oh-One simply quoted you verbatim, this is out of the question).

But why should existing sets of laws be given preference to hypothetical ones? Why should we use the strictest set of laws that have existed already? The fact that they've already been used does not, in my mind, make them better then hypothetical ones.
Well, to my mind, they have more relevance because they are real.

I tend to be like that, you know...more interested in the real laws that affect my real work in real life, than in making up a bunch of stories to justify the mindset that, essentially, seeks to steal my stuff.

But why should existing sets of laws be given preference to hypothetical ones? Why should we use the strictest set of laws that have existed already? The fact that they've already been used does not, in my mind, make them better then hypothetical ones.

Except for the fact that the currrent laws are based on the wisdom obtained from hundreds of years of experience and clarification. Whereas the hypothetical laws are being suggested out of thin air by those that haven't even studied the existing laws or their history.

Yes, obviously.

He's asking how far you'd take your stance that one's children have a right to earnings produced by one's intellectual property. That is neither an invalid question, nor a strawman.

Whether One-oh-One's position is a good one is up to debate, but musing on the logical conclusion of someone's argument is not a strawman; indeed, I don't see how it could be a strawman (unless the musing included a poor appraisal of the original position; but as One-oh-One simply quoted you verbatim, this is out of the question).
No, actually, that is not what he was saying in the specific post you were referring to and it is not what I was referring to as a strawman. He and I have been following several points of argument. You really should read the thread to get them sorted out. You can get back to me when you do.

again, I suggest you stop using the term "theft" as if it has a legal meaning.
It does in the UK (where I believe One-oh-One is from).

See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_Act_1978).

Except for the fact that the currrent laws are based on the wisdom obtained from hundreds of years of experience and clarification. Whereas the hypothetical laws are being suggested out of thin air by those that haven't even studied the existing laws or their history.
Yeah, this, too^^. Actual thought and testing applied to a thing tends to give it more value in my eyes.

Well, to my mind, they have more relevance because they are real.

I tend to be like that, you know...more interested in the real laws that affect my real work in real life, than in making up a bunch of stories to justify the mindset that, essentially, seeks to steal my stuff.

But in the context of what the law should ideally be, the current law is irrelevant. I'm not currently advocating for any particular duration of copyright, but I think that, in determining what system would be ideal, it's silly to take into account what the current laws are, except perhaps grandfathering in works produced under the current law.

But in the context of what the law should ideally be, the current law is irrelevant. I'm not currently advocating for any particular duration of copyright, but I think that, in determining what system would be ideal, it's silly to take into account what the current laws are, except perhaps grandfathering in works produced under the current law.
You would not take the past into account in assessing what works and what doesn't work when devising a new system? Remind me not to put you in charge of updating anything.

EDIT: By the way, the snark in my posts to you is being prompted by the fact that I have already made, in various posts in the thread, points regarding possible ways in which the system needs to be and could be updated/improved. I really hate having to reinvent the wheel and make all my points over and over again for everyone who thinks up a question but cannot manage to get caught up on what the person they want to talk to has already said, in order to figure out what their position is.

Except for the fact that the currrent laws are based on the wisdom obtained from hundreds of years of experience and clarification. Whereas the hypothetical laws are being suggested out of thin air by those that haven't even studied the existing laws or their history.

Then in arguing for keeping the specific duration where it is, use the reasoning from those hundreds of years to say why the law should be what it is, instead of "well, that's the way it is now." That's straying awfully close to an appeal to tradition. Further, for hundreds of years, we didn't have the technologies that we have now. The the law should adapt to the reality of the situation, and instead of trying to apply laws that were written in one context to the current one and causing all sorts of problems, we should look into reforming them into something that would work better.

You would not take the past into account in assessing what works and what doesn't work when devising a new system? Remind me not to put you in charge of updating anything.

I would take the reasoning into account, but I wouldn't say "well this is the way it was so it must be better than every way that hasn't been tried." Explore the reasoning behind the current system, and use that, rather than using the current system as its own defense.

I would take the reasoning into account, but I wouldn't say "well this is the way it was so it must be better than every way that hasn't been tried." Explore the reasoning behind the current system, and use that, rather than using the current system as its own defense.
Please see my edit to my previous post.

Then in arguing for keeping the specific duration where it is, use the reasoning from those hundreds of years to say why the law should be what it is, instead of "well, that's the way it is now." That's straying awfully close to an appeal to tradition. Further, for hundreds of years, we didn't have the technologies that we have now. The the law should adapt to the reality of the situation, and instead of trying to apply laws that were written in one context to the current one and causing all sorts of problems, we should look into reforming them into something that would work better.

You are rather begging a number of questions.

If you wish to advocate for a change (let alone a total revamping) of intellectual property law, the onus should be on you to show how the current laws are failing and how they could be improved.

Further, the law has adapted and improved over time (including to consider the impact of the "new technologies" to which you point.

In 1881 Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote, "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience." Holmes did not mean that logic has no place in the law, but that the lessons of history and human development sometimes defy the hypothetical and should be given a certain presumption.

Please see my edit to my previous post.

I actually have, despite what you seem to be implying, read the entire thread (I always do before posting), and from what I can see, you advocate:
The artist and heirs get life of the artist + 50 years.
But the rights are not as easily renewed by others, so that it's the artist that controls the work.
Is this correct, or a misunderstanding?

But from what I can see, the life + 50 seems to be based on the fact that that's the strictest system that's been tried so far. This seems to imply that stricter is inherently better than less strict, unless the system that is more restrictive has not been tried yet. But I don't think that's a good basis for determining which system is the right one.

Now, perhaps life + 50 years is the right amount of time. Perhaps it isn't. I just don't think the argument you used is good.

I don't think the rights of the artist should ever expire, unless perhaps they are dead and have no heirs.

I actually have, despite what you seem to be implying, read the entire thread (I always do before posting), and from what I can see, you advocate:
The artist and heirs get life of the artist + 50 years.
But the rights are not as easily renewed by others, so that it's the artist that controls the work.
Is this correct, or a misunderstanding?

But from what I can see, the life + 50 seems to be based on the fact that that's the strictest system that's been tried so far. This seems to imply that stricter is inherently better than less strict, unless the system that is more restrictive has not been tried yet. But I don't think that's a good basis for determining which system is the right one.

Now, perhaps life + 50 years is the right amount of time. Perhaps it isn't. I just don't think the argument you used is good.
You missed the parts about why there is a benefit to keeping work out of the public domain for a period of time after the original creator's death.

You also missed the parts about using new technology to put more power over distributed copyrighted material into the hands of the artists (cutting out the corporate middlemen). Artists themselves are traditionally more generous with their work product than media corporations have been. JK Rowling is the exception to the general rule.

You also missed the parts of the thread I have been responding to, which are not suggesting amending IP laws, but abolishing them.

I am not interested in getting into a theoretical discussion about what might be. I am debating what is with people who are advocating the elimination of legal controls over my work and who have actually questioned whether artists deserve to make a living off their work at all. I am arguing about the present with people who are trying to justify present actions.

If you want to start a hypothetical discussion about possible courses the future could take, please write up a suggestion or argument and post it for anyone to respond to.

Please do not attempt to predicate it on my arguments. Please do not quote me in it. And please do not address it specifically to me. It is a separate issue from what I have been discussing and should be treated as such. If I have anything to offer on that sub-topic, I will respond to it on its own merits.

Thank you.

Please do not attempt to predicate it on my arguments. Please do not quote me in it. And please do not address it specifically to me. It is a separate issue from what I have been discussing and should be treated as such. If I have anything to offer on that sub-topic, I will respond to it on its own merits.
Jawohl, mein Kommandant.

:P

Jawohl, mein Kommandant.

:P
Well, gosh, I'm sorry, Chumbly, PC, et al, if I'm just not that into jumping through whatever hoop any of you might randomly feel like putting up. I'm here, arguing a certain line of argument, and, no I am not especially interested in getting led off into various tangents by other people. PC's thoughts may very well be interesting, and they may very well have been sparked by what I said here, but they are not germane to the line of argument I have been pursuing, and I don't feel like opening up a second line of argument just now.

If he starts a discussion about possible changes to copyright law, something might come up that I have something worthwhile to say about, but right now, I'm busy with something else.

<foam-mouthed snip>
Before you go and give yourself a heart attack, it's the way you put it, not what you said.

Before you go and give yourself a heart attack, it's the way you put it, not what you said.
Yeah, I'm aware of your habit of ascribing all kinds of irrational and out of control behavior to me, and your apparent new hobby of criticizing me for my way of speaking rather than the content of my posts. It's very charming.

I'm going to a late lunch. Hopefully, you'll be more interested in the topic than in me when I get back.

(What the fuck is with NSG lately? If I'm such a pain in the ass, why aren't they ignoring me?)

(What the fuck is with NSG lately? If I'm such a pain in the ass, why aren't they ignoring me?)

A very large masochist's political board went down due to issues. Apparently, the owner of the board did not have permission from his master in order to run it. Anyway, most of them came to NSG and are now arguing with you.

Yeah, I'm aware of your habit of ascribing all kinds of irrational and out of control behavior to me, and your apparent new hobby of criticizing me for my way of speaking rather than the content of my posts. It's very charming.
Oh, cheer up old gal.

Do you not see anything amusing in the brusqueness of your posts? The way you treat any and all deviation from the OP as some crime against humanity?

Anyhoo, back to the madness that is copyright law.

Yeah, I'm aware of your habit of ascribing all kinds of irrational and out of control behavior to me, and your apparent new hobby of criticizing me for my way of speaking rather than the content of my posts. It's very charming.

I'm going to a late lunch. Hopefully, you'll be more interested in the topic than in me when I get back.

(What the fuck is with NSG lately? If I'm such a pain in the ass, why aren't they ignoring me?)

It's the classic story: when one can't or won't engage the poster's arguments, one attacks the poster.

Consider it a badge of honor.

Except for the fact that the currrent laws are based on the wisdom obtained from hundreds of years of experience and clarification. Whereas the hypothetical laws are being suggested out of thin air by those that haven't even studied the existing laws or their history.

I would love to live where you live. In the country I live in, laws are typically based on: poorly thought out knee-jerk reactions by lawmakers to sensational news stories or over exaggerated threats, ideas with no actual research behind them designed only to make constituents feel like politicians are doing something positive, intense lobbying by special interest groups, backroom dealing between officials, a desire to be perceived as tough on ______(crime, terrorists, child molesters, illegal immigrants, etc.) regardless of how effective or ineffective the law may be, etc.

I really wish all countries were like yours, where I live most laws really are suggested out of thin air.

It's the classic story: when one can't or won't engage the poster's arguments, one attacks the poster.

Consider it a badge of honor.
I believe 99.99% of regular Generalites own that badge.

All of you people who are still arguing against IP are not making any sense to anyone whose job relies on being creative. You fail to realize that artists, musicians, and writers need to be protected as well and frankly most of it is downright hypocritical to think.

IP protects artists, writers, and musicians from hypocrites like you, who would just take whatever we do otherwise; plain and simple. Obviously talking nicely about it and debating the point isn't going to work so its time for the direct and possibly rude way of describing it. It covers my ass from you taking whatever you want from me and provides me with the legitimate way to defend my rights, and tell all you hypocrites out there to fuck off and let me have what is mine. It keeps the 'free' market free and lets us innovators innovate. If you don't like it travel back in time and live in the Soviet Union.

Incorrect.

If I own my body, I own my mind. If I own my mind,
okay I agree so far

then I own the products of my mind. If I own the products of my mind, then I am entitled to attach whatever conditions I like to the distribution of those products.

Ok this has no connection to the former and is complete dreck...thank you come again

It covers my ass from you taking whatever you want from me and provides me with the legitimate way to defend my rights, and tell all you hypocrites out there to fuck off and let me have what is mine.
As neutral as I am on the subject of IP (it seems sensible that you have the freedom to restrict distribution of your music, but not of your program for fast and effective cancer treatment), I would point out that it's only hypocritical if IP violation is one-sided. If the anti-IP crowd surrender the creative rights to their music, film, software and whatever, then while it may be oppressive to insist that you do likewise, you can't accuse them of hypocrisy.

The Open Source community is a good example of this mutualism in action. Although the property rights of each individual are diminished, the work as a whole benefits from the collaborative effort because nobody is allowed to claim it as their own, but also because they are prepared to contribute to as well as take from each project. If either of those two features were absent, the project would be stunted.

As neutral as I am on the subject of IP (it seems sensible that you have the freedom to restrict distribution of your music, but not of your program for fast and effective cancer treatment), I would point out that it's only hypocritical if IP violation is one-sided. If the anti-IP crowd surrender the creative rights to their music, film, software and whatever, then while it may be oppressive to insist that you do likewise, you can't accuse them of hypocrisy.

The Open Source community is a good example of this mutualism in action. Although the property rights of each individual are diminished, the work as a whole benefits from the collaborative effort because nobody is allowed to claim it as their own, but also because they are prepared to contribute to as well as take from each project. If either of those two features were absent, the project would be stunted.
In such a community, the rights to the work is, as you said, given up by the creator(s) or spread out among all the contributors.

but in some cases, a parent or overseer has the copyright and is just allowing others to contribute with the knowledge that those contributors don't have any say.

The intangibility of intellectual property rights makes my head spin. The notion that you can own an idea or the rights to a song that you can sing in your own living room just doesn't sit right with me. I just can't seem to grasp the idea of IP.

That said, I respect the rationale behind the regulations, and don't see any other way around it (especially in our marked-oriented world). So I respect the legislation.

What is interesting is the fact that intellectual property is such a elatively young concept and how quickly it has expanded in the last few decades. It seems to get more expansive with each year. Just think that even a few decades ago, music and literature only had copyright protection for 25 years. Now it's what? 75?
Yeah, some say you can thank Disney for that.

And frankly, I don't see the point in extending it so much. For the heirs, 25 years after the death of the creator should suffice.

This is the main thrust of it though. The fact is, entertainment is a business. For businesses to exist, they have to be profitable. If the entertainment isn't profitable, it won't be made.

I agree. I honestly would never invest in a computer game or a game company. I can't understand how they survive with the culture of rampant piracy that exist today.

Another general comment I'd like to toss into the ring:

I personally believe that the whole IP system has been corrupted by both corporate greed and consumer greed. Until all this music download and software DRM mess started up, the general rule of thumb was that the consumer was allowed to make a few copies of something for personal use (which included non-commercial sharing with others), just so long as he did not do any of the following:

1) Steal the work in the first place.

2) Broadcast or publically display the works without permission.

3) Produce the copies specifically for sale, without paying royalties out of the sale price to the copyright holder.

4) Produce a volume of copies that could potentially be sold commerically -- so, 5 copies for friends = okay; 1000 copies for some undisclosed purpose = not okay.

5) Alter the work and/or claim authorship over it (subject to "fair use" doctrines).

The current state of virtual warfare over copyright, however, is due, in my opinion, to the combination of entertainment corporations that are almost psychotically obsessed with squeezing money out of every project in every possible way no matter how minute, and consumers who seem to have the mindset of 4-year-olds whose parents didn't make them pay for their toys, so they don't seem to see why they should have to pay for things they want now.

Caught between those two, I really think it is time for artists to find a new way of doing things.
I find myself agreeing with what you say, but I just can't think of a solution. I don't know if an acceptable one exist that will make everybody happy.

My attitude certainly isn't to get what I want for free.
Then you aren't the problem - directly. But you would enable the millions of people who don't want to pay to do just that.

I'm questioning whether or not the artist deserves to earn money, and whether or not it is for the public good. I have been rebuked on some points, but generally I still believe that copyright laws are far too harsh on people not infringing to earn money from others works.
Too harsh? How so?

I'm sure you could if you had a machine that replicated a Ferrari, and in that case, since you couldn't afford a Ferrari, the company loses nothing, do they?
They do when you make some more for your friends who can afford it and would have bought it if they didn't have the option of getting it for free from you, and even more so when your friends also start replicating...

...oh, and the company loses money (here meaning, isn't earning money) since you're not paying for a product you wouldn't have had if it hadn't been for them, so yeah.

In such a community, the rights to the work is, as you said, given up by the creator(s) or spread out among all the contributors.

but in some cases, a parent or overseer has the copyright and is just allowing others to contribute with the knowledge that those contributors don't have any say.
True enough. Mind you, were that copyright to be enforced in action against the contributors, contributions, and indeed the success of the creation, would probably grind to a halt.

Why do people insist on acting as if intellectual property only consist of artistic creations! Has nobody heard of things like patent law for instance? That is a considerable section of property rights, and one of the most important set of laws that has ever existed regarding the way western society has developed.

Why do people insist on acting as if intellectual property only consist of artistic creations! Has nobody heard of things like patent law for instance? That is a considerable section of property rights, and one of the most important set of laws that has ever existed regarding the way western society has developed.

Because the real agenda of those attacking IP is little more than free license to download songs and other media. They don't understand copyrights any more than the understand patents or trademarks, but they are against what they believe poses an obstacle to their theft of others work.

Because the real agenda of some of those attacking IP is little more than free license to download songs and other media. Some people don't understand copyrights any more than the understand patents or trademarks, but they are against what they believe poses an obstacle to their theft of others work.
Fixed.

Fixed.

No! Everybody who thinks that the law could do with being changed is a bad person who just wants stuff for free and hates artists and hopes they starve! No exceptions!

No! Everybody who thinks that the law could do with being changed is a bad person who just wants stuff for free and hates artists and hopes they starve! No exceptions!

well, it's either that or ignorance, really, considering I have yet to hear of one, single viable proposal that would radically restructure the way intellectual property laws work, without having that as a result.

So really, either they just want stuff for free, or don't care about the logical ramifications of their little crusade.

True enough. Mind you, were that copyright to be enforced in action against the contributors, contributions, and indeed the success of the creation, would probably grind to a halt.

depends. was a contract that detailed terms of use signed?

and what prompted the action? a contributor taking another contributor's idea and going solo?

well, it's either that or ignorance, really, considering I have yet to hear of one, single viable proposal that would radically restructure the way intellectual property laws work, without having that as a result.

So really, either they just want stuff for free, or don't care about the logical ramifications of their little crusade.

What would be the ramifications if we made it so that, in addition to current expirations set in place, we made it so that if the music/software company/artist/whoever stopped attempting to make money on the product - I.E. stopped producing it - then it would become public domain?

It still wouldn't allow you to claim it was yours, but it would allow you to procure by other means if it's no longer commercially available.

well, it's either that or ignorance, really, considering I have yet to hear of one, single viable proposal that would radically restructure the way intellectual property laws work, without having that as a result.

So really, either they just want stuff for free, or don't care about the logical ramifications of their little crusade.

While I can't say for sure what would work-- I'm not an economist-- I think we should look at the success at artists such as NIN and see if we can't try to restructure the system to more closely match something like what Trent Reznor has done.

I know that I have purchased NIN music that was offered (legally!) for free, and will continue to do so should it be offered in the same way. Again, I don't know the exact details of how a system based on that should work-- but that doesn't mean that I have to think the current system can't be improved upon. It doesn't mean that, even if we keep the same general system, I can't think that life+50 years is arbitrary for copyright, and should possibly be reduced.

Or, to go to an area that I'm a bit more familiar with, software. Just because I think free (as in freedom, not as in price) software is better ethically than proprietary software, doesn't mean that I will crack proprietary software to remove its restrictions. I'll just think "oh well, a shame it wasn't released as free software" and then either purchase it or not depending on if it is still worth it. Fairly often, it is. But if it isn't, I won't illegally acquire the software.

But yeah, it's easier to just assign labels and assume ill motive.

What would be the ramifications if we made it so that, in addition to current expirations set in place, we made it so that if the music/software company/artist/whoever stopped attempting to make money on the product - I.E. stopped producing it - then it would become public domain?

It still wouldn't allow you to claim it was yours, but it would allow you to procure by other means if it's no longer commercially available.

well I wouldn't call that a "radical restructuring" exactly. I wouldn't necessarily have anything against that, and it would fit in with the "use it or lose it" idea of trademark law.

well I wouldn't call that a "radical restructuring" exactly. I wouldn't necessarily have anything against that, and it would fit in with the "use it or lose it" idea of trademark law.

Well, I only ask because I distinctly remember one of the cases that the RIAA sued on during its crusade involved an older woman who had her kids get some really old music that's no longer commercially available. There was some other music too that still was, but they sued her for the older stuff that they still held the copyright on as well.

It was kind of a big deal in certain circles, so that's why I asked.

Also, there was a big lawsuit about some little game thing that hooked to the TV and had a bunch of old regular NES games on it that wasn't licensed, and they got shut down for it too.


I just find it ironic (and ultimately ridiculous) that they can sue for damages on something that they no longer make money off or are even trying to make money off of anyway.

<snip>
Yeah, some say you can thank Disney for that.

And frankly, I don't see the point in extending it so much. For the heirs, 25 years after the death of the creator should suffice.
25 years after the death of the original creator sounds fine to me.

I agree. I honestly would never invest in a computer game or a game company. I can't understand how they survive with the culture of rampant piracy that exist today.
Many don't, and the ones that do either are or are connected to major media corporations and vigorously wage this "virtual war" as I called it earlier.

I find myself agreeing with what you say, but I just can't think of a solution. I don't know if an acceptable one exist that will make everybody happy.
You can't make everyone happy. In fact, in order to reform this issue to suit modern media, you will likely have to make two groups very unhappy -- the pirates and the corporate middlemen. I really don't have much problem with plunging both of those into misery.

Creative Commons offer a very good collection of forms that allow artists to finetune the availability of their works. The set ups are sound, and they work very well for artists marketing direct to the consumers. I really think more artists, musicians, writers, etc. should consider this kind of direct to the market approach, now that modern media and delivery systems make that more feasible.

I agree. I honestly would never invest in a computer game or a game company. I can't understand how they survive with the culture of rampant piracy that exist today.

Apparently, one company did a study which found that the level of piracy stays pretty constant no matter what kind of copy-protection and such is included. They found that it was much, much more profitable just to leave the copy-protection off.

I'll have to see if hubby can find that study again.

The thing is, most people will buy a game/movie/song/etc., unless they feel the price is unfair or the company is full of dicks or something like that.

Of course, there always those who are out to get everything for free. Those people are going to exist no matter what the law is or what kind of protections are placed on digital media.

well, it's either that or ignorance, really, considering I have yet to hear of one, single viable proposal that would radically restructure the way intellectual property laws work, without having that as a result.

you would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of eminent 19th century german philosopher karl marx?

you would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of eminent 19th century german philosopher karl marx?

oh, yeah, communism, that's always a viable option :p

I agree. I honestly would never invest in a computer game or a game company. I can't understand how they survive with the culture of rampant piracy that exist today.

Ah, but they do nonetheless. I don't have cash to toss around at investments myself, but if I did, I'd say Blizzard is a safe bet. Piracy hasn't visibly cut into their revenues, and they have a long history of churning out commercially viable games. (Though as a gamer my loyalty kinda died with Warcraft 3.)

Ah, but they do nonetheless. I don't have cash to toss around at investments myself, but if I did, I'd say Blizzard is a safe bet. Piracy hasn't visibly cut into their revenues, and they have a long history of churning out commercially viable games. (Though as a gamer my loyalty kinda died with Warcraft 3.)

well I think they protect themselves from piracy for a few reasons:

1) MMOs are, for the most part, pirate proof
2) the strength of blizzard's games have been the multiplayer, which adds another layer to piracy protection

well I think they protect themselves from piracy for a few reasons:

1) MMOs are, for the most part, pirate proof
2) the strength of blizzard's games have been the multiplayer, which adds another layer to piracy protection

You'd be surprised about 1). There are free servers of WoW out there that are essentially emulated versions of WoW. They're not perfect, but they're functional.

And frankly, I don't see the point in extending it so much. For the heirs, 25 years after the death of the creator should suffice.

Why 25? Why not 50? What about 10? Mura never really answered my question, just accused me of building a strawman. I can understand the life part, though I don't really agree with it, though I don't have any rationale for that other than a gut feeling, which I suspect you have the same.

I agree. I honestly would never invest in a computer game or a game company. I can't understand how they survive with the culture of rampant piracy that exist today.

Yeah, World of Goo was an Independent game released lately, and they figured out that it had an 80% pirated rate (though there was some questioning on the Slashdot comments system of the way they conducted the study). But then again, the DRM in Spore was accused of increasing the rate of piracy, it's now the most pirated game ever. Everyone wanted it, but nobody wanted EAs DRM crap on their system, so they pirated instead. There is also accusations that the DRM was there to prevent second hand sales more than anything. Backlash, it's a bitch.

Too harsh? How so?

RIAA award $222,000 from woman who downloaded 24 songs. (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/riaa-jury-finds.html) - That's harsh. Also the RIAA campaign of what basically amounts to extortion against the University. Havard Law School is fighting back though, I'm glad someone got some balls.

They do when you make some more for your friends who can afford it and would have bought it if they didn't have the option of getting it for free from you, and even more so when your friends also start replicating...

Not really, in a real world situation, I only really have one friend who I share the same tastes in music. He fits into the group of people who download lots, and buy lots.

...oh, and the company loses money (here meaning, isn't earning money) since you're not paying for a product you wouldn't have had if it hadn't been for them, so yeah.

If the company was never going to get the money from me, it was never going to earn money, thus it isn't losing any from me.

Why 25? Why not 50? What about 10? Mura never really answered my question, just accused me of building a strawman. <snip>
I did answer your question. I told you that it is to (a) allow the artist's heirs to benefit from their legacy and (b) to allow the artist's work to retain value and significance and to allow the record of authorship to remain clear by stopping the work from becoming diluted by excessive use too soon after the orginal artist stops producing new works.

You may not like that answer, but I most certainly did give it to you. Twice now.

25 years was, apparently, the original time frame in the US. I believe it was expanded up to 50 under Carter. Later, it was expanded again. It could easily be reduced again but I see no reason to go less than 25 years.

I did answer your question. I told you that it is to (a) allow the artist's heirs to benefit from their legacy and (b) to allow the artist's work to retain value and significance and to allow the record of authorship to remain clear by stopping the work from becoming diluted by excessive use too soon after the orginal artist stops producing new works.

You may not like that answer, but I most certainly did give it to you. Twice now.

25 years was, apparently, the original time frame in the US. I believe it was expanded up to 50 under Carter. Later, it was expanded again. It could easily be reduced again but I see no reason to go less than 25 years.

Ah, missed that sorry. Yeah, apparently the Berne Convention which was the big the first international decision on copyright put it to 50 years after death, except with films and photos, whereas photos were covered from 25 years after first shot, and films were protected for 50 years from first showing, or 50 years after creation if not shown within the first 50 years of creation. For anyone that's interested, I'm sure you were already aware of this.

This thread is annoying on so many different levels.

This thread is annoying on so many different levels.

Do go on.

Do go on.

No. I think I summed up my position.

As neutral as I am on the subject of IP (it seems sensible that you have the freedom to restrict distribution of your music, but not of your program for fast and effective cancer treatment), I would point out that it's only hypocritical if IP violation is one-sided. If the anti-IP crowd surrender the creative rights to their music, film, software and whatever, then while it may be oppressive to insist that you do likewise, you can't accuse them of hypocrisy.

The Open Source community is a good example of this mutualism in action. Although the property rights of each individual are diminished, the work as a whole benefits from the collaborative effort because nobody is allowed to claim it as their own, but also because they are prepared to contribute to as well as take from each project. If either of those two features were absent, the project would be stunted.

People need to do something to make a living. If I choose for my living to be an innovator (artist, musician, inventor, ect.) the work I do is worth money to me. I produce things, and I sell them, I create ideas, and I sell them, you can't just take my art, and take my ideas and expect nothing for them; the same as nobody can expect you to make things in a factory without receiving a wage. If someone is going to demand that all innovators share their innovations for nothing they are a hypocrite, plain and simple. Even if they give away every single thing they write, draw, invent, or otherwise, if they are doing anything to make a living, they are a hypocrite.

25 years was, apparently, the original time frame in the US. I believe it was expanded up to 50 under Carter. Later, it was expanded again. It could easily be reduced again but I see no reason to go less than 25 years.

Copyrights were created with the intention of enriching the public domain. Therefore I would assume that copyrights should last the minimum amount of time that gives artists proper incentives to create. 25 years after death seems fairly excessive for that. Twenty years is the normal length for a patent. Its a decent starting point.

People need to do something to make a living. If I choose for my living to be an innovator (artist, musician, inventor, ect.) the work I do is worth money to me. I produce things, and I sell them, I create ideas, and I sell them, you can't just take my art, and take my ideas and expect nothing for them; the same as nobody can expect you to make things in a factory without receiving a wage. If someone is going to demand that all innovators share their innovations for nothing they are a hypocrite, plain and simple. Even if they give away every single thing they write, draw, invent, or otherwise, if they are doing anything to make a living, they are a hypocrite.

If someone chooses to attempt to make a living in a profession where its impossible to make a living its not anyone else's fault if they can't make living. Nor do I see anyone who's against IP rights demanding that innovators share their innovations for nothing. They just don't wish for said innovators' illegitimate/false property rights to be enforced.

If someone chooses to attempt to make a living in a profession where its impossible to make a living its not anyone else's fault if they can't make living.

Except that we need people that do not limit creativity to some lost hours in their spare time. Perhaps we could survive without artists, but not without inventors, innovators and so on. We need them to be able to do their things for a living.

Nor do I see anyone who's against IP rights demanding that innovators share their innovations for nothing.

Feel free to write down a detailed compensation plan superior to IP, taking into account the fact that once an idea is out, copying generally becomes trivial.

If someone chooses to attempt to make a living in a profession where its impossible to make a living its not anyone else's fault if they can't make living. Nor do I see anyone who's against IP rights demanding that innovators share their innovations for nothing. They just don't wish for said innovators' illegitimate/false property rights to be enforced.

Oh really? Every time you burn a DVD you are demanding, every time you download a song of Limewire or Bearshare you are demanding, every time you take a picture of a work of art off a private website that does not have an open source agreement you are demanding. Every time you steal something from innovators like myself and Muravyets you are demanding that we share our creations and innovations with you at no cost, with no restrictions, because you are a hypocrite and for some reason think that we are less worthy to make a living doing what we love.

Tell me, do you live in your mother's basement? Do you live in a communist commune, or do you manage to post here from the past in the Soviet Union of the 20th century? If none of those apply to you you are making a living on you own somehow; producing something, and every time you open your mouth or type away about how IP laws should not exist you are being a hypocrite.

Except that we need people that do not limit creativity to some lost hours in their spare time. Perhaps we could survive without artists, but not without inventors, innovators and so on. We need them to be able to do their things for a living.

He doesn't seem to feel this way. Seems like he'd rather not have the internet, or a personal computer, or even electricity for that... because without Intellectual Property laws none of these would be mainstream.

He doesn't seem to feel this way. Seems like he'd rather not have the internet, or a personal computer, or even electricity for that... because without Intellectual Property laws none of these would be mainstream.

Lolwut? I can't hear you above the screams of "hypocrites! thiefs! you'd be no where without people like me and Mura!" Aside from the fact that all the things you mentioned came around from a series of intermingling factors. I don't see the logic in "It wasn't invented in an enviroment of artifical monopoly?! It must mean it wouldn't have become mainstream!" This makes no sense, the fact that somebody doesn't have to pay money for something usually makes it more popular.

Lolwut? I can't hear you above the screams of "hypocrites! thiefs! you'd be no where without people like me and Mura!" Aside from the fact that all the things you mentioned came around from a series of intermingling factors. I don't see the logic in "It wasn't invented in an enviroment of artifical monopoly?! It must mean it wouldn't have become mainstream!" This makes no sense, the fact that somebody doesn't have to pay money for something usually makes it more popular.

Let's try another angle.
How exactly do YOU (and the other fans of abolishing IP) believe people should be rewarded for their creativity. Take into account the fact that for most people being creative does take up so much time they would not be able to have another job.
Also specifically mention if you think that being creative is even worthy of being rewarded in your view.

Let's try another angle.
How exactly do YOU (and the other fans of abolishing IP) believe people should be rewarded for their creativity. Take into account the fact that for most people being creative does take up so much time they would not be able to have another job.
Also specifically mention if you think that being creative is even worthy of being rewarded in your view.

Well, open source companies make money by providing services and training for their products, while the products themselves remain free of charge.

I'm all for artists getting a living's worth out of their art. However, I kind of object to extending copyright every time Disney is about to loose Mickey Mouse to the public domain. And it's just silly hearing multimillionaires complaining we're somehow stealing their livelihood.

Here's an interesting keynote: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2002/08/15/lessig.html?page=1

Let's try another angle.
How exactly do YOU (and the other fans of abolishing IP) believe people should be rewarded for their creativity. Take into account the fact that for most people being creative does take up so much time they would not be able to have another job.
Also specifically mention if you think that being creative is even worthy of being rewarded in your view.

I don't believe we should abolish copyright laws, just for starters. I d believe that it needs to be toned down.

The value it has is that which you attribute to it. For instance, I might value a Bob Dylan album a lot more than some trash like Coldplay (imho). f course, NIN and Radiohead both sucessfully released albums cutting out their labels, and successfully so.

I'm all for artists getting a living's worth out of their art. However, I kind of object to extending copyright every time Disney is about to loose Mickey Mouse to the public domain. And it's just silly hearing multimillionaires complaining we're somehow stealing their livelihood.

Here's an interesting keynote: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2002/08/15/lessig.html?page=1

^This.

I don't believe we should abolish copyright laws, just for starters. I d believe that it needs to be toned down.

The value it has is that which you attribute to it. For instance, I might value a Bob Dylan album a lot more than some trash like Coldplay (imho). f course, NIN and Radiohead both sucessfully released albums cutting out their labels, and successfully so.

Details please. With numbers and such. If you want to make a decent case for abolishing IP, you will have to show your alternative works.

I'm all for artists getting a living's worth out of their art. However, I kind of object to extending copyright every time Disney is about to loose Mickey Mouse to the public domain. And it's just silly hearing multimillionaires complaining we're somehow stealing their livelihood.

Here's an interesting keynote: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2002/08/15/lessig.html?page=1

I'm not a multimillionaire, and you are stealing my livelihood!

There, now its not a multimillionaire telling you. :)

I'm not a multimillionaire, and you are stealing my livelihood!

There, now its not a multimillionaire telling you. :)

Read the article, your livelihood is indeed being stolen, not by us though.

You are highly constrained by what you can create due to copyright.

Details please. With numbers and such. If you want to make a decent case for abolishing IP, you will have to show your alternative works.

You>"How exactly do YOU (and the other fans of abolishing IP)"
Me>"I don't believe we should abolish copyright laws"
You>"If you want to make a decent case for abolishing IP"

Huh?

And on reform, which is completely different from abolishing, I don't believe copyrights should be able to sold on to others though licensing of works allowed. I also think the "if you don't use it, you lose it" argument is completely fair.

It should be noted that I haven't thought this through thoroughly (inb4 the "no kidding").

Lolwut? I can't hear you above the screams of "hypocrites! thiefs! you'd be no where without people like me and Mura!" Aside from the fact that all the things you mentioned came around from a series of intermingling factors. I don't see the logic in "It wasn't invented in an enviroment of artifical monopoly?! It must mean it wouldn't have become mainstream!" This makes no sense, the fact that somebody doesn't have to pay money for something usually makes it more popular.

A series of intermingling factors, some patented or copyrighted and some not; and people had to pay for the patented products and copyrighted materials that they used to help them through their hard work and dedication to create all the cool things we enjoy today. Thomas Edison owned the patent on the Phonograph, the only way you could create a factory building Phonographs at the turn of the 20th century was to pay Mr. Edison so that you could have the rights to make them. That same concept goes with a whole big boatload, a veritable Noah's ark of cool gizmos and doodads that we get to fiddle around with today; and as long as those laws exist we will continue to get newer and cooler toys to play with until we die.

If the majority of people thought the same way Tech-Gnosis did nobody would bother; they'd stick with the tried and true things in life because going out and being innovative just doesn't pay off.

You>"How exactly do YOU (and the other fans of abolishing IP)"
Me>"I don't believe we should abolish copyright laws"
You>"If you want to make a decent case for abolishing IP"

Huh?

IP and copyright are not the same thing.

It should be noted that I haven't thought this through thoroughly (inb4 the "no kidding").

That is what is working against you ;)

I'm not a multimillionaire, and you are stealing my livelihood!

There, now its not a multimillionaire telling you. :)Now if only I actually were stealing something from you ;)
Heck, just imagine 1 million people around the world stealing from you. Wouldn't you want the notoriety? I bet you could find a way to capitalize on it.

On the other hand, if I were stealing from some multi-millionaire artist, that would increase the likelihood I'm not buying whatever it is your selling either. So I suppose it may harm less well-known artists. (Not that they'd be better off if I bought from the top selling artists.)

Well, I doubt you make anime, anyway. And Music and movies don't interest me much. (Besides, deezer provides free online music if I want it).

A series of intermingling factors, some patented or copyrighted and some not; and people had to pay for the patented products and copyrighted materials that they used to help them through their hard work and dedication to create all the cool things we enjoy today. Thomas Edison owned the patent on the Phonograph, the only way you could create a factory building Phonographs at the turn of the 20th century was to pay Mr. Edison so that you could have the rights to make them. That same concept goes with a whole big boatload, a veritable Noah's ark of cool gizmos and doodads that we get to fiddle around with today; and as long as those laws exist we will continue to get newer and cooler toys to play with until we die.

If the majority of people thought the same way you do nobody would bother; they'd stick with the tried and true things in life because going out and being innovative just doesn't pay off.

Despite what you may believe, there are more motivations for making things than money, which you should know being a self-proclaimed artiste.

TVs today, which you mentioned before, are almost completely different, and only work on the same basic principals which are physics ones (visible wavelengths etc). Despite that you seem to think I fully support abolishing IP laws, I don't. Patent laws, for example seem reasonable for 20 years, with the exceptions of things without which people will suffer badly like AIDS or Cancer meds.

IP and copyright are not the same thing.

Princeton WordWeb defines it as "intangible property that is the result of creativity (such as patents or trademarks or copyrights)". So no, they are not the same thing, one, copyrights, is apart of the other, intellectual property.

That is what is working against you ;)

Clever.

Clever.

No, sad fact. Due to not thinking it through, people are going to think of you as a whiney child that wants to download stuff for free, instead of someone with a bright and creative (possibly even copytrightable ;)) idea to enrich society and make life more fair.

If the majority of people thought the same way Tech-Gnosis did nobody would bother; they'd stick with the tried and true things in life because going out and being innovative just doesn't pay off.Ah, that must explain the open source community. Oh, wait, it doesn't. At all.
People are inventive and creative for all sorts of reasons. Getting paid for it is, for some, just a perk.
I suppose you could say it pays off in other, non-monetary, ways.

Despite what you may believe, there are more motivations for making things than money, which you should know being a self-proclaimed artiste.

TVs today, which you mentioned before, are almost completely different, and only work on the same basic principals which are physics ones (visible wavelengths etc). Despite that you seem to think I fully support abolishing IP laws, I don't. Patent laws, for example seem reasonable for 20 years, with the exceptions of things without which people will suffer badly like AIDS or Cancer meds.

There is the stuff that I do for fun, that stuff I distribute freely to anyone who wants it, the stuff that I don't care who takes it and what happens to it and I let it be known that its all good and well to share it with everyone; my motivation there is to have fun.. and when that's my motivation then I am happy to share my IP, but its still mine.

Then there is the stuff I do for money and those things I do not want to share, and will not share, save with the people whom I am making it for. The art is still mine, but they have my permission to use it; and when someone else comes along and takes that which I have worked long and hard to create in the interests of making a living then its potentially as bad to my well being as them walking into my home and taking my wallet; or stealing my identity.

I understand that not all things are done for money, and I do a lot of things for no other reason than to do them, but I also spend just as much time trying to make my living by being creative and the people that are against IP are standing in the way of that goal. Just like any other law IP is going to be abused, and any alternative system that the great minds of today or tomorrow will come up with is going to be abused. You can't condone getting rid of a system that literally protects millions if not billions because a few individuals abuse it. You yourself are not against IP laws, Tech-Gnosis on the other hand, whom I was pointing most of my argument against does seem to absolutely believe that anything anyone creates should be shared freely and openly, that kind of thinking stifles innovation and slows progress, IP laws help innovation thrive; we reach new heights of technology every day because of the laws that exist to protect people's ideas.

No, sad fact. Due to not thinking it through, people are going to think of you as a whiney child that wants to download stuff for free, instead of someone with a bright and creative (possibly even copytrightable ;)) idea to enrich society and make life more fair.

"Whiney kid" doesn't really qualify in my book, when evidence is supplied and arguments dear I say it, argumented.

Ah, that must explain the open source community. Oh, wait, it doesn't. At all.
People are inventive and creative for all sorts of reasons. Getting paid for it is, for some, just a perk.
I suppose you could say it pays off in other, non-monetary, ways.

I've drawn from and contributed to open source, open source may take time but in the end it doesn't take a whole lot of effort or money on a scale as large as the innovations that change the world. Its good and all, but its not the be all and end all. Plenty of the people that are big on open source things are also making a living doing other, better, not open source things.

I've drawn from and contributed to open source, open source may take time but in the end it doesn't take a whole lot of effort or money on a scale as large as the innovations that change the world. Its good and all, but its not the be all and end all. Plenty of the people that are big on open source things are also making a living doing other, better, not open source things.

And some people make money from developing open source. Funny how that works, huh?

And some people make money from developing open source. Funny how that works, huh?

So this is the entire argument against IP?

*laughs his way out of the thread*

So this is the entire argument against IP?I think it's more of an argument against an argument for IP.
You don't necessarily need IP to make money from your intellectual endeavors. However this doesn't settle the question whether or not it is or isn't a good thing to have. And it certainly is easier to see how it applies to software (where you can make money from support), than other intellectual works.
For things like music, film and animation, aside from selling the product itself, the main stream of income is probably merchandising. But that stream of income also relies on IP. (Because otherwise others could make and sell the merchandise.) There isn't really an alternative as there is with software.
But how long do you need to have a copyright to make a fair return on your efforts? 14 years? Life+50? Or as Bono said, "forever minus a day"?
And of course there are other intellectual property rights. You should at least always get credit for your work (i.e. that others can't pass it off as their own). And that's something very few people nowadays would argue against, even if they pirate. (It was, however, a fairly new notion in the renaissance, compared to the middle ages.)

Some people make a living writing open source software. But compare the giants of the Open Source community: Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox, Theo de Raadt, etc. To the giants of the proprietary software community: Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, John Carmack, etc. You see any differences?

Some people make a living writing open source software. But compare the giants of the Open Source community: Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox, Theo de Raadt, etc. To the giants of the proprietary software community: Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, John Carmack, etc. You see any differences?

The first group's software works better? :wink:

Except that we need people that do not limit creativity to some lost hours in their spare time. Perhaps we could survive without artists, but not without inventors, innovators and so on. We need them to be able to do their things for a living.

How do we need them not to limit their creativity?


Feel free to write down a detailed compensation plan superior to IP, taking into account the fact that once an idea is out, copying generally becomes trivial.

You'll have to demonstrate how we need innovators to be creative before this becomes an issue.

Oh really? Every time you burn a DVD you are demanding, every time you download a song of Limewire or Bearshare you are demanding, every time you take a picture of a work of art off a private website that does not have an open source agreement you are demanding. Every time you steal something from innovators like myself and Muravyets you are demanding that we share our creations and innovations with you at no cost, with no restrictions, because you are a hypocrite and for some reason think that we are less worthy to make a living doing what we love.

If one is able to download a work of art then the artist has already chosen to share their piece of work since according to those against IP they have no ownership rights to the information/ideas themselves.

Tell me, do you live in your mother's basement? Do you live in a communist commune, or do you manage to post here from the past in the Soviet Union of the 20th century? If none of those apply to you you are making a living on you own somehow; producing something, and every time you open your mouth or type away about how IP laws should not exist you are being a hypocrite.

According to those against IP rights one can't own ideas/information. Someone who tries to make a living a living using illegitimate property rights is a fool.


I understand that not all things are done for money, and I do a lot of things for no other reason than to do them, but I also spend just as much time trying to make my living by being creative and the people that are against IP are standing in the way of that goal. Just like any other law IP is going to be abused, and any alternative system that the great minds of today or tomorrow will come up with is going to be abused. You can't condone getting rid of a system that literally protects millions if not billions because a few individuals abuse it. You yourself are not against IP laws, Tech-Gnosis on the other hand, whom I was pointing most of my argument against does seem to absolutely believe that anything anyone creates should be shared freely and openly, that kind of thinking stifles innovation and slows progress, IP laws help innovation thrive; we reach new heights of technology every day because of the laws that exist to protect people's ideas.

Actually I believe in some sort of of IP rights. I was just pointing out that Anti-IPers aren't hypocrites. They don't think anybody for compensated for something they have right too. They also don't wish to force everything to be freely shared. Not one anti Iper I have seen demands that others share their own Harry Potter slash fic or nude pics. They just think that if a copy that slash or pics are given/sold to someone else who then puts that slash or pic on a file sharing site and then its downloaded thousands of times then the original creator should not expect compensation because the original creator has no ownership rights to the immaterial creation in the Anti IP paradigm.

How do we need them not to limit their creativity?

Fair point.
We need them to be creative if we wish to keep our current society functioning and improving. If we are willing to throw that overboard, we indeed will not need it. The Amish for instance function quite well without innovation.

Of course, that requires a few billion people to die due to society being unable to support them.

You'll have to demonstrate how we need innovators to be creative before this becomes an issue.

Our whole society is based on it, and depends on it as well. Situations after all change. Populations grow. Resources deplete. Alternative solutions are needed.

According to those against IP rights one can't own ideas/information. Someone who tries to make a living a living using illegitimate property rights is a fool.

What incentive is there to create, then?

Copyrights were created with the intention of enriching the public domain. Therefore I would assume that copyrights should last the minimum amount of time that gives artists proper incentives to create. 25 years after death seems fairly excessive for that. Twenty years is the normal length for a patent. Its a decent starting point.
A decent starting point for what? Whittling it down to nothing? So far, we've gone from bitching about the admittedly excessive 70 years post death down to 50, 25, and now another measly 5 years gets hacked off? Why? 25 years is fine.

If someone chooses to attempt to make a living in a profession where its impossible to make a living its not anyone else's fault if they can't make living. Nor do I see anyone who's against IP rights demanding that innovators share their innovations for nothing. They just don't wish for said innovators' illegitimate/false property rights to be enforced.
It is not impossible to make a living in art/creative/innovation if we are allowed to protect our work from thieves and pirates. And if you have not seen anyone demanding that innovators share their work for free, then you are either not reading the thread, or selectively choosing to think only about inventors who get patents (hence, "innovators") when the bulk of the thread has been talking about artists who get copyright. The OP himself has repeatedly questioned whether artists even "deserve" (his word) to earn a living from their work at all.

I'm all for artists getting a living's worth out of their art. However, I kind of object to extending copyright every time Disney is about to loose Mickey Mouse to the public domain. And it's just silly hearing multimillionaires complaining we're somehow stealing their livelihood.

Here's an interesting keynote: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2002/08/15/lessig.html?page=1
I just love the way individual artists like me -- who are the ones who are really hurt by copyright violation -- get to be thrown on the trash heap because some people don't like big corporations like Disney. You hate Disney? Fine -- there's plenty to hate there. But what the hell did I ever do to you that I should lose my ability to earn a living?

Read the article, your livelihood is indeed being stolen, not by us though.

You are highly constrained by what you can create due to copyright.
How do you figure that?

How do you figure that?

I guess you're "constrained" in the sense that you can't copy someone else's work without permission.

Which is sorta a constraint, I guess....

Despite what you may believe, there are more motivations for making things than money, which you should know being a self-proclaimed artiste.

TVs today, which you mentioned before, are almost completely different, and only work on the same basic principals which are physics ones (visible wavelengths etc). Despite that you seem to think I fully support abolishing IP laws, I don't. Patent laws, for example seem reasonable for 20 years, with the exceptions of things without which people will suffer badly like AIDS or Cancer meds.
Entertaining you for free is not one of those motivations. Explain to me again why you question why artists deserve to earn a living from their work.

I guess you're "constrained" in the sense that you can't copy someone else's work without permission.

Which is sorta a constraint, I guess....
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Oh, the horrible constraint of not being able to live by theft, and having instead to come up with my own ideas, doing original work, and working with other images within the brutally oppressive rules of the fair use doctrine. However do I manage? Alack and alas! *adopts suffering pose*

But what the hell did I ever do to you that I should lose my ability to earn a living?

evidence that there is exactly one system under which people could earn a living by doing creative work, and that the present system is that one?

Fair point.
We need them to be creative if we wish to keep our current society functioning and improving. If we are willing to throw that overboard, we indeed will not need it. The Amish for instance function quite well without innovation.

Of course, that requires a few billion people to die due to society being unable to support them.

improving, perhaps. but how exactly do we even exist if we require more innovation to do so in the first place?

improving, perhaps. but how exactly do we even exist if we require more innovation to do so in the first place?

I do not understand the question. Surely you know that the fact there are a few billion instead of million people around is due to better agricultural techniques, better medication and so on ? Innovations.

Sure - one can argue that this situation itself is undesireable, but offer an alternative then. As well as alternative ways for artists and inventors to make a living.

evidence that there is exactly one system under which people could earn a living by doing creative work, and that the present system is that one?
Evidence that there is another? Believe me, I'd be only too happy to have the option.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Oh, the horrible constraint of not being able to live by theft, and having instead to come up with my own ideas, doing original work, and working with other images within the brutally oppressive rules of the fair use doctrine. However do I manage? Alack and alas! *adopts suffering pose*

From the article...

Here's a story: There was a documentary filmmaker who was making a documentary film about education in America. And he's shooting across this classroom with lots of people, kids, who are completely distracted at the television in the back of the classroom. When they get back to the editing room, they realize that on the television, you can barely make out the show for two seconds; it's "The Simpsons," Homer Simpson on the screen. So they call up Matt Groenig, who was a friend of the documentary filmmaker, and say, you know, Is this going to be a problem? It's only a couple seconds. Matt says, No, no, no, it's not going to be a problem, call so and so. So they called so and so, and so and so said call so and so.

Eventually, the so and so turns out to be the lawyers, so when they got to the lawyers, they said, Is this going to be a problem? It's a documentary film. It's about education. It's a couple seconds. The so and so said 25,000 bucks. 25,000 bucks?! It's a couple seconds! What do you mean 25,000 bucks? The so and so said, I don't give a goddamn what it is for. $25,000 bucks or change your movie. Now you look at this and you say this is insane. It's insane. And if it is only Hollywood that has to deal with this, OK, that's fine. Let them be insane. The problem is their insane rules are now being applied to the whole world. This insanity of control is expanding as everything you do touches copyrights.

As an artist, say you create an interesting interpretation of The Simpsons as a lens on society, using images in an original and creative way to form something new, something interesting.

Good luck.

It reminds me of The Grey Album by MC Dangermouse, though I think both The Beatles team and Jay-Z let it fly in the end, where he really did create something very cool...

Other than that, pharmaceutical companies going into developing countries and patenting herbal formulas from natural medicines.

I remember someone telling me that no creative idea is standalone, it is inspired by something else, two old thoughts merged to form something new.

Again, I'm certainly not against artists making money from their creations, I do, however, think that patent, copyright and whatever protection laws are far beyond the realm of damaging creativity rather than liberating it.

I'd ask for reform in how we think about it, at the moment the only people really profiting from it all are the lawyers, yeah you Neo Art :)

From the article...



As an artist, say you create an interesting interpretation of The Simpsons as a lens on society, using images in an original and creative way to form something new, something interesting.

Good luck.

It reminds me of The Grey Album by MC Dangermouse, though I think both The Beatles team and Jay-Z let it fly in the end, where he really did create something very cool...

Other than that, pharmaceutical companies going into developing countries and patenting herbal formulas from natural medicines.

I remember someone telling me that no creative idea is standalone, it is inspired by something else, two old thoughts merged to form something new.

Again, I'm certainly not against artists making money from their creations, I do, however, think that patent, copyright and whatever protection laws are far beyond the realm of damaging creativity rather than liberating it.

I'd ask for reform in how we think about it, at the moment the only people really profiting from it all are the lawyers, yeah you Neo Art :)
Ah, so my suspicions were correct. It is about the horrific and stultifying constraint of not being able to steal other people's stuff. Added for spice is a little bit of punishing the individual artist for the excesses of media corporations (edit: and even bringing big pharma into it), and the whole thing is coated in a sauce of you not understanding what the fair use doctrine is (and isn't).

I'm a collage artist. I work with both original images and appropriated images -- that's art-speak for images lifted from other sources. Believe you me, I have researched fair use. I know exactly what I can do and what I can't, I work within the rules, and I am well satisfied that my work is exactly what I want it to be, creatively. No constraints on me at all. You know why? Because I'm realizing my own ideas, not just playing with other people's.

Ah, so my suspicions were correct. It is about the horrific and stultifying constraint of not being able to steal other people's stuff. Added for spice is a little bit of punishing the individual artist for the excesses of media corporations, and the whole thing is coated in a sauce of you not understanding what the fair use doctrine is (and isn't).

I'm a collage artist. I work with both original images and appropriated images -- that's art-speak for images lifted from other sources. Believe you me, I have researched fair use. I know exactly what I can do and what I can't, I work within the rules, and I am well satisfied that my work is exactly what I want it to be, creatively. No constraints on me at all. You know why? Because I'm realizing my own ideas, not just playing with other people's.

No you're not, creativity is not formed in a vacuum and when every image is appropriated from the sun to the sky, you'll realise how much you've been cheated.

I do not understand the question. Surely you know that the fact there are a few billion instead of million people around is due to better agricultural techniques, better medication and so on ? Innovations.

Sure - one can argue that this situation itself is undesireable, but offer an alternative then. As well as alternative ways for artists and inventors to make a living.

the point is that we must already have enough innovation to sustain the people we have at least as well as they are sustained. we cannot need more innovation to prevent them from dying en mass.

No you're not, creativity is not formed in a vacuum and when every image is appropriated from the sun to the sky, you'll realise how much you've been cheated.
Oh, I will, will I? Well, forgive me if I choose not to hold my breath waiting for that Great Disappointment to come around. :rolleyes:

the point is that we must already have enough innovation to sustain the people we have at least as well as they are sustained. we cannot need more innovation to prevent them from dying en mass.
Are you suggesting that we can turn off our brains and stop thinking now?

A decent starting point for what? Whittling it down to nothing? So far, we've gone from bitching about the admittedly excessive 70 years post death down to 50, 25, and now another measly 5 years gets hacked off? Why? 25 years is fine.

So you meant 25 years total and not 25 years after the creators life? From a earlier post it seemed to imply that you meant 25 years post death.

What incentive is there to create, then?

Rather little.

It is not impossible to make a living in art/creative/innovation if we are allowed to protect our work from thieves and pirates.

Neither IP proponents nor opponents have proven that their normative property right system is the correct one since that is impossible. Calling each other thieves and rent seeking monopolists is unhelpful.

And if you have not seen anyone demanding that innovators share their work for free, then you are either not reading the thread, or selectively choosing to think only about inventors who get patents (hence, "innovators") when the bulk of the thread has been talking about artists who get copyright.

Please point out any of these people. All I see people who don't think IP rights are illegitimate. At most I see something similar to the free culture ideal that was based on the free software. Innovators/creators are free to sell or give their creations/innovations away or sell them to others and those people can give them away, sell them, or change them in anyway they can. No one is forced to share their innovation, though admittedly they have few incentives to innovate or share/sell their innovations.

The OP himself has repeatedly questioned whether artists even "deserve" (his word) to earn a living from their work at all.

If IP rights are illegitimate and IP rights are the only way artists can earn a living then artists don't deserve to earn a living. Its the logical conclusion from the premises.

Just jumping in again, I don't see, in the documentary example, how a few seconds of The Simpsons being included in those circumstances should be considered theft. Now, it might be that it actually falls under fair use and the lawyers were just trying to intimidate the documentary-maker because they thought he'd pay up without getting a second opinion, but, if not, then I think that's an example of an area that needs to be rethought.

Oh, I will, will I? Well, forgive me if I choose not to hold my breath waiting for that Great Disappointment to come around. :rolleyes:

Well we all continue to breathe while financial companies manipulate balance sheets until the entire Ponzi scheme collapses because we won't hold our breath until it happens, businesses rape the environment and we won't hold our breath until serious systemic problems and lawyers legalise away any rights we had, we breathe until the last gasp of oxygen is gone.

Again, I'm not saying artists should not be compensated for work done, I'm saying there's a step too far in allowing monetary interest dominate the world we live in.

A little bit of hyperbole there, so sue me.

So you meant 25 years total and not 25 years after the creators life? From a earlier post it seemed to imply that you meant 25 years post death.
I meant the artist's life plus 25 years would be the reduction I would be willing to accept as the default rule under the law, with the artist having the option to apply lesser restrictions to their own works.


Please point out any of these people. All I see people who don't think IP rights are illegitimate. At most I see something similar to the free culture ideal that was based on the free software. Innovators/creators are free to sell or give their creations/innovations away or sell them to others and those people can give them away, sell them, or change them in anyway they can. No one is forced to share their innovation, though admittedly they have few incentives to innovate or share/sell their innovations.
I did point one out to you. The OP host. He denies it, but suggests that artists don't deserve to earn a living from their work at the same time.

If IP rights are illegitimate and IP rights are the only way artists can earn a living then artists don't deserve to earn a living. Its the logical conclusion from the premises.
The bolded is the bullshit part of your premise that invalidates everything that follows from it.

Evidence that there is another? Believe me, I'd be only too happy to have the option.

the historical examples more or less cover everything. there were singers and authors and artists before there were property rights over the ideas of their works. and further possibilities are somewhat trivial to imagine. my favored alternatives involve radical restructuring of the economy, but some are as simple as having grant money available for various sorts of projects. i mean, that's how we get a huge chunk of our creative work done already, so it isn't exactly shocking.

and for the partisans of innovation, it is worth noting that breaking the link between control over 'intellectual property' and survival has the benefit of radically increasing the rate of innovation and creative output. if what is to be maximized is the creativity, then locking ideas away from being used and expanded upon by the rest of humanity for decades is clearly counterproductive.

Just jumping in again, I don't see, in the documentary example, how a few seconds of The Simpsons being included in those circumstances should be considered theft. Now, it might be that it actually falls under fair use and the lawyers were just trying to intimidate the documentary-maker because they thought he'd pay up without getting a second opinion, but, if not, then I think that's an example of an area that needs to be rethought.
The bolded is the most likely reality. It happens all the time. For example, Mattel corporation has a problem because the Barbie Doll has, over the decades, become a cultural icon. As a result, it is used in artistic applications all the time -- as social commentary, satire, etc. Almost every single year, Mattel tries to sue some artist for using their doll without permission and they lose almost every single suit they bother to bring to court because of the fair use doctrine. The media corps and big manufacturers buy into a bizarre "total world domination" fantasy of brand control that causes them to jump on every single fucking mention of their products for either quick money or just power tripping. They usually lose such suits.

Well we all continue to breathe while financial companies manipulate balance sheets until the entire Ponzi scheme collapses because we won't hold our breath until it happens, businesses rape the environment and we won't hold our breath until serious systemic problems and lawyers legalise away any rights we had, we breathe until the last gasp of oxygen is gone.

Again, I'm not saying artists should not be compensated for work done, I'm saying there's a step too far in allowing monetary interest dominate the world we live in.

A little bit of hyperbole there, so sue me.
Yeah, I know what you're saying, but having read your argument as you have presented it so far, I dismiss it on the grounds that you don't really know what you are talking about.

Are you suggesting that we can turn off our brains and stop thinking now?

no, i'm rejecting a specific claim made in the post i quoted.

We need them to be creative if we wish to keep our current society functioning and improving. If we are willing to throw that overboard, we indeed will not need it...
Of course, that requires a few billion people to die due to society being unable to support them.

the historical examples more or less cover everything. there were singers and authors and artists before there were property rights over the ideas of their works. and further possibilities are somewhat trivial to imagine. my favored alternatives involve radical restructuring of the economy, but some are as simple as having grant money available for various sorts of projects. i mean, that's how we get a huge chunk of our creative work done already, so it isn't exactly shocking.

and for the partisans of innovation, it is worth noting that breaking the link between control over 'intellectual property' and survival has the benefit of radically increasing the rate of innovation and creative output. if what is to be maximized is the creativity, then locking ideas away from being used and expanded upon by the rest of humanity for decades is clearly counterproductive.
So, in other words, there actually is no alternative available to me today, and you have no real, practical ideas to offer. Thought so.

no, i'm rejecting a specific claim made in the post i quoted.
Yeah, I know. I've been reading the thread.

So, in other words, there actually is no alternative available to me today, and you have no real, practical ideas to offer. Thought so.

you know, i sometimes doubt your reading comprehension. we weren't talking about alternatives available today and i actually pointed out that some exist right now and are in common use.

the point is that we must already have enough innovation to sustain the people we have at least as well as they are sustained. we cannot need more innovation to prevent them from dying en mass.

Suppose that our society does not change at all in the next, say, 100 years. No innovations whatsoever, no change in population and so on.

Then the coal and natural gas supplies are depleted. Without innovation, society collapses.

As I said (three times in fact, but you seem to overlook it every time): situations change.

Suppose that our society does not change at all in the next, say, 100 years. No innovations whatsoever, no change in population and so on.

Then the coal and natural gas supplies are depleted. Without innovation, society collapses.

As I said (three times in fact): situations change.

i can't see how we'd hold population constant. presumably, in such a situation population would decline. and not catastrophically, but just people having fewer kids and dying of old age.

I meant the artist's life plus 25 years would be the reduction I would be willing to accept as the default rule under the law, with the artist having the option to apply lesser restrictions to their own works.

That would seem excessive to the basic justification for IP, which is to create incentives to create artistic works and technological innovation so that the public domain is ultimately enriched. The minimum number of years should would be the best number of years for that purpose so that the original artist has the incentive to create and other can quickly build upon that creation. Somewhere between 15 and 30 years should do.

I did point one out to you. The OP host. He denies it, but suggests that artists don't deserve to earn a living from their work at the same time.

And I pointed out that from the OP's conclusion logically followed his premises and you haven't shown that he thinks artists should be forced to share his work. From what I have seen he just thinks that artist's illegitimate ownership claims(which they are from his perspective) should not be enforced. They are two different things.

The bolded is the bullshit part of your premise that invalidates everything that follows from it.

How so? Many libertarians say that positive rights are not legitmate rights. I use the term IP rights because its quicker than saying the so called IP rights or the stuff that is inappropiately called intellectual property since it is faster.

Or did you mean that IP rights are legitimate? If so, please prove that they are.

Yeah, I know what you're saying, but having read your argument as you have presented it so far, I dismiss it on the grounds that you don't really know what you are talking about.

They took the works of this guy, these guys, the Brothers Grimm, who you think are probably great authors on their own. They produce these horrible stories, these fairy tales, which anybody should keep their children far from because they're utterly bloody and moralistic stories, and are not the sort of thing that children should see, but they were retold for us by the Disney Corporation. Now the Disney Corporation could do this because that culture lived in a commons, an intellectual commons, a cultural commons, where people could freely take and build. It was a lawyer-free zone.

(Audience Applauds.)

It was culture, which you didn't need the permission of someone else to take and build upon. That was the character of creativity at the birth of the last century. It was built upon a constitutional requirement that protection be for limited times, and it was originally limited. Fourteen years, if the author lived, then 28, then in 1831 it went to 42, then in 1909 it went to 56, and then magically, starting in 1962, look--no hands, the term expands.

Eleven times in the last 40 years it has been extended for existing works.

You complain about people cutting the time for protection but the reality is that protection has been steadily increasing rather than being reduced.

The reality is that people like you, with small resources and budgets, are being constrained by people who stole the original ideas in the first place.

Copyright law has been extended and extended because the interest in extending them is not simply the interests of the artists but the fees taken by lawyers.

At some point there's crossover and fair right usage of cultural icons will be narrowed and narrowed because there's monetary interest in doing so, and it's not necessarily yours, regardless of whether you'll actually be able to take advantage of it.

you know, i sometimes doubt your reading comprehension. we weren't talking about alternatives available today and i actually pointed out that some exist right now and are in common use.
If anyone is having trouble reading, perhaps it is you. You asked for evidence that there IS no alternative system for artists to make a living. I counter-asked you for evidence that there IS an alternative.

Present tense. As in alternatives available today.

You came back with vague references to what superficially appears to have been the case at some unspecified time long ago, and vague remarks about how you would like to restructure all of society. I.e. no system and not available today.

That would seem excessive to the basic justification for IP, which is to create incentives to create artistic works and technological innovation so that the public domain is ultimately enriched. The minimum number of years should would be the best number of years for that purpose so that the original artist has the incentive to create and other can quickly build upon that creation. Somewhere between 15 and 30 years should do.
I already addressed the reasons for extending copyright beyond the life of the artist -- twice to One-O-One. I suggest you read the thread, because I don't like to keep repeating myself over and over.

And I pointed out that from the OP's conclusion logically followed his premises and you haven't shown that he thinks artists should be forced to share his work. From what I have seen he just thinks that artist's illegitimate ownership claims(which they are from his perspective) should not be enforced. They are two different things.
Again, read the thread. I'm not going to read it to you in the form of quoting him for you. Also, you seem to be ignoring the fact that this entire argument exists because there are people in the world who think his premise is false, and thus all his conclusions, no matter how logically they follow, are also false, because they are based on a false premise.

You and he have both failed to show that his premise is valid.

How so? Many libertarians say that positive rights are not legitmate rights. I use the term IP rights because its quicker than saying the so called IP rights or the stuff that is inappropiately called intellectual property since it is faster.
"Many libertarians" is hardly a persuasive basis for supporting an argument. Rather a sad appeal to authority or popularity or whatever that is. If you are going to claim that the validity of your position is based on what "many libertarians" think, then you are going to have to prove that the premises of those libertarians are valid themselves.

Or did you mean that IP rights are legitimate? If so, please prove that they are.
The arguments in favor of the validity of IP right have already been presented in this thread. They form half of the bulk of the discussion (the other half being arguments in favor of your position). I will not repost half the thread for you. Read it yourself.

You complain about people cutting the time for protection but the reality is that protection has been steadily increasing rather than being reduced.

The reality is that people like you, with small resources and budgets, are being constrained by people who stole the original ideas in the first place.

Copyright law has been extended and extended because the interest in extending them is not simply the interests of the artists but the fees taken by lawyers.

At some point there's crossover and fair right usage of cultural icons will be narrowed and narrowed because there's monetary interest in doing so, and it's not necessarily yours, regardless of whether you'll actually be able to take advantage of it.
No, I'm sorry, your argument is still bullshit and here's why:

1) I have already told you my work is not constrained by these conditions, so your insistence that it is constrained is really quite silly.

2) The stories of the Brothers Grimm were never covered by copyright but NOT because there was no such thing in their day. There actually was a form of copyright in their day, but their stories were not fully covered by it for one simple reason: The Brothers Grimm did not write them.

That's right -- the Grimms were not writers or authors. They were folklorists. They did not write those stories, they collected them from village storytellers all over Germany. Those were were "traditional" tales -- no authorship, no ownership, public domain. The Grimms were just memorializing and codifying traditional German oral storytelling traditions. Those stories were always free of copyright because there was never any author to them.

3) Furthermore, the reason the Grimm tales can be taken and ruined by Disney is because the Grimms collected and published them so long ago, the copyright has expired and they are in the public domain. You can take and ruin them, too, if you like. You can take and ruin Shakespeare's works and the plays of the Greeks, too, if you want. And if I write a novel that gets published, then about 50 years after I die, you can take and ruin it, too. But not before then.

4) The above just goes to show that, as I said before, you have no real understanding of what is going on with copyright. But at least you're not the only one blowing smoke out of ignorance.

If anyone is having trouble reading, perhaps it is you. You asked for evidence that there IS no alternative system for artists to make a living.

no i didn't. you would do well to acquaint yourself with our friend the word 'could', which is used in sentences like
evidence that there is exactly one system under which people could earn a living by doing creative work, and that the present system is that one?
to talk of possibilities, whether currently instantiated or not.

you know that making really weird readings doesn't actually help you out, right? like, even if both your reading and my reading were equally likely in the original case, further context clarified what i was talking about. pretending it didn't is just silly.

no i didn't. you would do well to equate yourself with our friend the word 'could', which is used in sentences like

to talk of possibilities, whether currently instantiated or not.

you know that making really weird readings doesn't actually help you out, right? like, even if both your reading and my reading were equally likely in the original case, further context clarified what i was talking about. pretending it didn't is just silly.
Did I or did I not ask YOU if there IS an alternative to the present system?

Did I or did I not ask YOU if there IS an alternative to the present system?
You did.

Straight after FS asked you if there was evidence against the idea that there could be another system.

So, everybody's right. Let's all join hands and sing.

You did.

Straight after FS asked you if there was evidence against the idea that there could be another system.

So, everybody's right. Let's all join hands and sing.
Wrong, actually. As you were writing this, I was going back to double check the content of the posts. Here is what I found:

evidence that there is exactly one system under which people could earn a living by doing creative work, and that the present system is that one?

Evidence that there is another? Believe me, I'd be only too happy to have the option.

He is not using the word "could" to describe the existence of systems and neither am I. He only uses it to ask for evidence that there IS only one system that I could use. I ask him for evidence that there IS another I could use. Both of us are talking about present conditions.

Then in his reponse to my request, he does not use the word "could" either. He makes vague remarks about what WAS in the past. He makes vague claims about what IS today in regard to grants (and believe me, his claim that we get a huge chunk of money for creative work from grants is not accurate), and he makes vague references to his personal desire to restructure the economy. Nothing at all about conditional systems that "could" exist as alternatives for me:
the historical examples more or less cover everything. there were singers and authors and artists before there were property rights over the ideas of their works. and further possibilities are somewhat trivial to imagine. my favored alternatives involve radical restructuring of the economy, but some are as simple as having grant money available for various sorts of projects. i mean, that's how we get a huge chunk of our creative work done already, so it isn't exactly shocking.

and for the partisans of innovation, it is worth noting that breaking the link between control over 'intellectual property' and survival has the benefit of radically increasing the rate of innovation and creative output. if what is to be maximized is the creativity, then locking ideas away from being used and expanded upon by the rest of humanity for decades is clearly counterproductive.

So, would both of you now like to tell me all about how I missed him saying "could" because I can't read?

I really don't get where this conversation has gone. Could there be another system? Of course, we could devise many other systems. Some would be better, some would be worse. Why would that be a point of debate?

He is not using the word "could" and neither am I. Both of us are talking about present conditions.
Um:
"evidence that there is exactly one system under which people could earn a living by doing creative work, and that the present system is that one?"
I'm sure FS can speak for himself, but this is a query about whether there is only the possibility of one system under which creators could live off of there creations.

Which is a valid question. Perhaps we should discuss it, rather than discuss what we're discussing?

Did I or did I not ask YOU if there IS an alternative to the present system?

yes, and there is.

consider the following:
"healthcare in america sucks! we should not have health insurance run through either your job or the individual market."
"why do you want me to lose my access to healthcare?"
"what? why should we think that the current system is the only system?"
"well, is there another?"
"sure, we could arrange a different system entirely, perhaps based on a national single-payer design."
"i said is - that doesn't exist yet so i can't sign up for it right now. therefore there is no alternative. why do you want me to lose access to healthcare?"
"wtf, mate"

I really don't get where this conversation has gone. Could there be another system? Of course, we could devise many other systems. Some would be better, some would be worse. Why would that be a point of debate?

fuck if i know

You did.

Straight after FS asked you if there was evidence against the idea that there could be another system.

So, everybody's right. Let's all join hands and sing.
Furthermore, in addition to my previous post, I maintain that his answer to my request was not responsive. I asked him for evidence that an alternative system to copyright exists for me to use, and he came back with vague remarks about the past, about his dreams of what he wishes would happen, and a vague and inaccurate remark about grants, but no mention of any system by which grants are a system for artists to earn a living. So as I said, he pointed out no existing alternative and offered no ideas for an alternative to copyright.

fuck if i know
Well, we could discuss the merits of each system, with the limitation that we are taking this from the point of view of being 'inside' one particular system.

Um:
"evidence that there is exactly one system under which people could earn a living by doing creative work, and that the present system is that one?"
I'm sure FS can speak for himself, but this is a query about whether there is only the possibility of one system under which creators could live off of there creations.

Which is a valid question. Perhaps we should discuss it, rather than discuss what we're discussing?
I see, so your problem is that you can't read English? He talked about evidence that there IS only one system that a person COULD use. Would you like to take some time to bring that phrase to an elementary school teacher who might diagram it for you?

M, stop digging

Furthermore, in addition to my previous post, I maintain that his answer to my request was not responsive. I asked him for evidence that an alternative system to copyright exists for me to use, and he came back with vague remarks about the past, about his dreams of what he wishes would happen, and a vague and inaccurate remark about grants, but no mention of any system by which grants are a system for artists to earn a living. So as I said, he pointed out no existing alternative and offered no ideas for an alternative to copyright.

So what? what's your point?

Whether a good alternative exists today or not is irrelevant. The fact remains an alternative can be created. We don't need a finished alternative plan in order to decide that there are problems with the system and we need to fix them. It's ok not to have all the answers before actually sitting down with experts and hashing together a good solution.

yes, and there is.

consider the following:
"healthcare in america sucks! we should not have health insurance run through either your job or the individual market."
"why do you want me to lose my access to healthcare?"
"what? why should we think that the current system is the only system?"
"well, is there another?"
"sure, we could arrange a different system entirely, perhaps based on a national single-payer design."
"i said is - that doesn't exist yet so i can't sign up for it right now. therefore there is no alternative. why do you want me to lose access to healthcare?"
"wtf, mate"
Indeed, "wtf, mate"? Your little dialogue supports, me, not you, Plato.

Well, we could discuss the merits of each system, with the limitation that we are taking this from the point of view of being 'inside' one particular system.

crazy talk. things either are or aren't. anything that is, is good, anything that isn't, is impossible.

I really don't get where this conversation has gone. Could there be another system? Of course, we could devise many other systems. Some would be better, some would be worse. Why would that be a point of debate?
The only reason it is being debated is because Free Soviets apparently doesn't like it when he gets caught without an answer, so he spends days and days and days bickering and equivocating to avoid saying, "No, I guess I don't know of any alternative that is available for creative workers aside from copyright protection for their works."

I see, so your problem is that you can't read English? Would you like to take some time to bring that phrase to an elementary school teacher who might diagram it for you?
Would you like to follow the forum rules and refrain from flaming?

Thank you.

He talked about evidence that there IS only one system that a person COULD use.
Meh, potentiality seems to imply talk of a could.

But I'll not pour fuel on your fire.

M, stop digging
F, stop squirming.

Would you like to follow the forum rules and refrain from flaming?

Thank you.


Meh, potentiality seems to imply talk of a could.

But I'll not pour fuel on your fire.
I'd rather not talk to you at all for several days, so I'll do that.

Lol...now it's just getting funny.

So what? what's your point?

Whether a good alternative exists today or not is irrelevant. The fact remains an alternative can be created. We don't need a finished alternative plan in order to decide that there are problems with the system and we need to fix them. It's ok not to have all the answers before actually sitting down with experts and hashing together a good solution.
So create one and then come to me with it. But I would like people to stop arguing that I don't need to rely on copyright when it is clear that there is no alternative available to me. Bring me an alternative and, if it works, I'll use it. But until then, I am not going to give up the one protection for my livelihood that I have.

Propose a system. Lay out an idea. Figure out how to implement it. Predict how it will benefit me. Or admit that there is no alternative to be discussed.

Lol...now it's just getting funny.
'tis always the way.

So create one and then come to me with it. But I would like people to stop arguing that I don't need to rely on copyright when it is clear that there is no alternative available to me. Bring me an alternative and, if it works, I'll use it. But until then, I am not going to give up the one protection for my livelihood that I have.

Nor do I think you should. I protect my own intellectual property aggressively as well. That doesn't mean that it is the only system possible. It's the system we have now and must put up with, but it's not the ideal system and there is plenty of room for improvement.

Nor do I think you should. I protect my own intellectual property aggressively as well. That doesn't mean that it is the only system possible. It's the system we have now and must put up with, but it's not the ideal system and there is plenty of room for improvement.
Quite.

I think the debate in this thread shows the problems with the current system. We don't want Mura starving in the street becasue some dolt has repackaged her creations for a larger profit, but neither do we want GlaxoSmithKlien from patenting the cure to cancer.

Creative Commons, FTW.

Lol...now it's just getting funny.
Sorry for the little asides. I have sporadic histories with these posters, both of whom have, at various times, gotten really into jerking me around over the most minute little points for days on end. The exchanges get more and more hostile until I just stop responding to them altogether -- that seems to be the only way to break it up. It only happens occasionally -- maybe it's astrological or something. Anyway, I'm just anticipating the need to briefly ignore them again based on how this conversation is going. You can just ignore it -- or laugh at it -- whatever you like.

I have sporadic histories with these posters, both of whom have, at various times, gotten really into jerking me around over the most minute little points for days on end.
Suffice to say, we don't see it that way.

*hugs*

Nor do I think you should. I protect my own intellectual property aggressively as well. That doesn't mean that it is the only system possible. It's the system we have now and must put up with, but it's not the ideal system and there is plenty of room for improvement.
Possible is not what I asked him. "Is" is what I asked him, in direct response to his "is" question. I have stated time and time again in this thread that the current system needs improvement and I have even suggested some ways in which I think it could potentially be improved. But in THIS instance, I am talking about what is, not what might be.

Quite.

I think the debate in this thread shows the problems with the current system. We don't want Mura starving in the street becasue some dolt has repackaged her creations for a larger profit, but neither do we want GlaxoSmithKlien from patenting the cure to cancer.

Creative Commons, FTW.

Creative commons is a terrible idea for the vast majority of people. It forces you to give up control over your work and can easily lead to situations like this one:

http://ipandentertainmentlaw.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/update-dumb-your-pen-friend/

Creative commons is a terrible idea for the vast majority of people. It forces you to give up control over your work...
If you haven't the right sorta CC licence then it can be a bad thing, and it most probably wouldn't help in the areas of non-artistic IP.

But, I think it could/can solve a lot of problems in the music industry.

The only reason it is being debated is because Free Soviets apparently doesn't like it when he gets caught without an answer, so he spends days and days and days bickering and equivocating to avoid saying, "No, I guess I don't know of any alternative that is available for creative workers aside from copyright protection for their works."

you know, you'd be a much more effective arguer if you didn't assume your opponents were stupid and intended to mean the less defensible way one could read what they said. especially when they and others tell you point blank that your reading is not the intended one - or even all that interesting.


and here is an alternative. people get a lesser set of rights than we currently protect, with broader allowances for further intellectual/creative work using others' ideas, for some time - let's say 10 years. however, running alongside this would be a social support system, either in the form of government grants or institutional support, wherein people who agreed to accept some reliable income would release their creative/innovative works directly into the commons, carrying only certain obligations of acknowledgment and such from future users.

So create one and then come to me with it. But I would like people to stop arguing that I don't need to rely on copyright when it is clear that there is no alternative available to me. Bring me an alternative and, if it works, I'll use it. But until then, I am not going to give up the one protection for my livelihood that I have.
Maybe you should just get a real job.

Face it, even if not for the breaking of intellectual property laws, jobs that depend on them are becoming increasingly obsolete anyway. Plenty of people are quite willing to develop entertainment for free, as a hobby, and out of creativity instead of needing money for it, and the amount of entertainment developed that way is becoming increasingly abundant.

Perhaps it might be an idea to bite the bullet sooner rather than later.

Maybe you should just get a real job.

Face it, even if not for the breaking of intellectual property laws, jobs that depend on them are becoming increasingly obsolete anyway. Plenty of people are quite willing to develop entertainment for free, as a hobby, and out of creativity instead of needing money for it, and the amount of entertainment developed that way is becoming increasingly abundant.

Perhaps it might be an idea to bite the bullet sooner rather than later.

I don't find that to be true at all. Can you name a few motion pictures produced without any money and given out for free that received an even moderate amount of distribution?

I don't find that to be true at all. Can you name a few motion pictures produced without any money and given out for free that received an even moderate amount of distribution?

Not made without money, but given out for free and made very wide distribution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edaJP3Lp0Gg

Not made without money, but given out for free and made very wide distribution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edaJP3Lp0Gg
I do believe that to be the first time such a link has ever been posted to make a legitimate discussion point. Bravo!

I do believe that to be the first time such a link has ever been posted to make a legitimate discussion point. Bravo!

Actually, I was hoping to fill the thread with angst and frustration.

I already addressed the reasons for extending copyright beyond the life of the artist -- twice to One-O-One. I suggest you read the thread, because I don't like to keep repeating myself over and over.

In the same amount of space you could have summarized your justification for posthumous property rights. . Getting to the justification you said that the posthumous rights helped maintain artists' legacy and identity. I don't see how limiting IP rights to twenty years warps artists' legacies or identities.


Again, read the thread. I'm not going to read it to you in the form of quoting him for you.

I've read the thread and I don't see it. If you disagree then quote a post.

Also, you seem to be ignoring the fact that this entire argument exists because there are people in the world who think his premise is false, and thus all his conclusions, no matter how logically they follow, are also false, because they are based on a false premise.

You and he have both failed to show that his premise is valid.

Neither proponents or opponents have proven their basic axioms are true.


"Many libertarians" is hardly a persuasive basis for supporting an argument. Rather a sad appeal to authority or popularity or whatever that is. If you are going to claim that the validity of your position is based on what "many libertarians" think, then you are going to have to prove that the premises of those libertarians are valid themselves.

You misunderstood. It was used as an example of what say one group thinks are legitimate rights(like the right to basic necessities) and others don't. It was not an appeal that just because libertarians don't believe it true then it is false. Another example would be some groups of socialists who don't believe in private property rights.


The arguments in favor of the validity of IP right have already been presented in this thread. They form half of the bulk of the discussion (the other half being arguments in favor of your position). I will not repost half the thread for you. Read it yourself.

Nothing in this thread proved anything in regards to what should be the normative property rights system. Its impossible to prove it because when each arguments are based on axioms which are nonfalsifiable.

you know, you'd be a much more effective arguer if you didn't assume your opponents were stupid and intended to mean the less defensible way one could read what they said. especially when they and others tell you point blank that your reading is not the intended one - or even all that interesting.


and here is an alternative. people get a lesser set of rights than we currently protect, with broader allowances for further intellectual/creative work using others' ideas, for some time - let's say 10 years. however, running alongside this would be a social support system, either in the form of government grants or institutional support, wherein people who agreed to accept some reliable income would release their creative/innovative works directly into the commons, carrying only certain obligations of acknowledgment and such from future users.
So...we should just allow wholesale taking of everybody's ideas and have creative workers (artists, inventors, whathaveyou) living on the public dole and doing all that creative work for....um....just the hell of it?

Maybe you should just get a real job.

Face it, even if not for the breaking of intellectual property laws, jobs that depend on them are becoming increasingly obsolete anyway. Plenty of people are quite willing to develop entertainment for free, as a hobby, and out of creativity instead of needing money for it, and the amount of entertainment developed that way is becoming increasingly abundant.

Perhaps it might be an idea to bite the bullet sooner rather than later.
There's an appropriate response to that, but it is out of keeping with forum rules, so I'll just say this: My job is real enough, thanks, you don't have to worry about me that way. But hey, if you prefer free hobby art, go for it. The more people like you deal only with each other, the easier it is for me to keep my job "real."

In the same amount of space you could have summarized your justification for posthumous property rights. Getting to the justification you said that the posthumous rights helped maintain artists' legacy and identity. I don't see how limiting IP rights to twenty years warps artists' legacies or identities.
<snip>
It is not my job to cater to your laziness. You clearly were able to find my statement regarding posthumous continuation of copyright, so you should be able to find the other points that have been covered in this thread as well. Therefore I will not look up the other points you want me to find for you.

As to this point, I said how it does it in post #361. It damages the original author's legacy and identity by diluting the work through excessive use and adaptation.

An artist who is living, even if they choose not to exercise copyright over their work, can still maintain the value of an original work by making more works, thus maintaining by a growing body of work the identity of the artist's unique style.

But when the artist stops producing new works, such as when they are dead, and other people take that work and alter it by subjecting it to uses in a different style, or by copying the original style, the identity of the original artist is diluted and confused. The effect of this ranges from devaluing the original artist's work, which has a negative effect on his/her heirs, to actually confusing the historic record. An example of that is the Dutch master Rembrandt, whose style has been so widely mimicked, whose paintings have been so altered and adulterated by others over time, and who has been the subject of so many deliberate forgeries as well as completely innocent copying by other artists, that his original works are the most difficult to authenticate of all artists. Many experts believe that there are far more fake Rembrandt paintings floating about the world than real ones, and hardly an art museum in the world has not found out that they got rooked for thousands, sometimes millions of dollars, buying a "Rembrandt" that turned out not be by him at all. And they were not even deliberately ripped off most of the time. The confusion over authorship began generations ago due to no one bothering to keep track. That is why extending copyright for a period after the original creator is no longer around to identify what is his and what is not is a benefit. It can help to prevent another Rembrandt mess.

I don't find that to be true at all. Can you name a few motion pictures produced without any money and given out for free that received an even moderate amount of distribution?
Well, there's the comedy movie known as the demented cartoon movie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXA6G16_IBY). :p

Ok, that kind of stuff has low production values, but seriously, there's plenty of stuff on the Internet made for free by people who are doing it as a hobby and not a job, and some of that stuff is serious stuff.

For example, deviantart is a site I don't particularily browse, at least not directly, but I've seen pictures on it linked to from other sites, and I'm convinced that there is an abundance of art that people made for free, as a hobby, that was anything but crudely drawn, and much within that was rather creative as well.

I've even seen video games that were developed by people who weren't in it for profit, and claim they lose money by making them. For example, I thought SRB2 was pretty good, and though it used a certain company's characters, in doing so it provided a style of game that said company wasn't putting out but that certain fans of the series involving those characters wanted to see.

After all, there are other motives than profit for doing things.

It is not my job to cater to your laziness. You clearly were able to find my statement regarding posthumous continuation of copyright, so you should be able to find the other points that have been covered in this thread as well. Therefore I will not look up the other points you want me to find for you.

Since you can't back up your claims then they will be assumed to be false until proven otherwise.

As to this point, I said how it does it in post #361. It damages the original author's legacy and identity by diluting the work through excessive use and adaptation.

An artist who is living, even if they choose not to exercise copyright over their work, can still maintain the value of an original work by making more works, thus maintaining by a growing body of work the identity of the artist's unique style.

But when the artist stops producing new works, such as when they are dead, and other people take that work and alter it by subjecting it to uses in a different style, or by copying the original style, the identity of the original artist is diluted and confused. The effect of this ranges from devaluing the original artist's work, which has a negative effect on his/her heirs, to actually confusing the historic record. An example of that is the Dutch master Rembrandt, whose style has been so widely mimicked, whose paintings have been so altered and adulterated by others over time, and who has been the subject of so many deliberate forgeries as well as completely innocent copying by other artists, that his original works are the most difficult to authenticate of all artists. Many experts believe that there are far more fake Rembrandt paintings floating about the world than real ones, and hardly an art museum in the world has not found out that they got rooked for thousands, sometimes millions of dollars, buying a "Rembrandt" that turned out not be by him at all. And they were not even deliberately ripped off most of the time. The confusion over authorship began generations ago due to no one bothering to keep track. That is why extending copyright for a period after the original creator is no longer around to identify what is his and what is not is a benefit. It can help to prevent another Rembrandt mess.

A twenty year copyright would leave a verifiable record of which works were made by whom if to get a copyright one had to register for it . If a work of art isn't in the record then its claim to validity should be considered spurious at best without very convincing evidence. Also with Rembrandt I didn't realize that artistic "styles" were considered IP. Given my relative ignorance of the law could you enlighten me to how much styles can be considered protected by IP? Also, I would think that there is now more concerned about authenticity so that records are drawn up for paintings and physical works of art and could be verified.

Maybe you should just get a real job.

Face it, even if not for the breaking of intellectual property laws, jobs that depend on them are becoming increasingly obsolete anyway. Plenty of people are quite willing to develop entertainment for free, as a hobby, and out of creativity instead of needing money for it, and the amount of entertainment developed that way is becoming increasingly abundant.

Perhaps it might be an idea to bite the bullet sooner rather than later.

Video games, film, music, etc all say youre ignorant.

Video games, film, music, etc all say youre ignorant.
How so?

There's an appropriate response to that, but it is out of keeping with forum rules, so I'll just say this: My job is real enough, thanks, you don't have to worry about me that way. But hey, if you prefer free hobby art, go for it. The more people like you deal only with each other, the easier it is for me to keep my job "real."
But the more people settle for whatever's being produced for free, the less quantity demanded there is for art made for profit.

EDIT: Besides, I don't think your unapologetically insulting tone towards Free Soviets was all that "appropriate" either...

But the more people settle for whatever's being produced for free, the less quantity demanded there is for art made for profit.

I'm not sure this is true. Sure, if I want a picture of an apple I'm going to Google search it, but if I want a painting for my wall I'm not getting a free poster off deviantart.

I think that with the population of the US being bigger than ever before recording artists can have their music distributed for free and still go three times platinum from sales.

So...we should just allow wholesale taking of everybody's ideas and have creative workers (artists, inventors, whathaveyou) living on the public dole and doing all that creative work for....um....just the hell of it?

question...are cops on the dole?

I'm not sure this is true. Sure, if I want a picture of an apple I'm going to Google search it, but if I want a painting for my wall I'm not getting a free poster off deviantart.
Well, paintings on one's wall aren't the only thing to be considered art, and I wouldn't be surprised if more people resorted to using a computer-printed picture for a poster now that we're in a recession. I still think the abundance of free alternatives would still reduce the quantity demanded somewhat.

However, I do not believe that any buyer of the rights to a creative work -- such as a recording company or publisher -- should be able to buy the same level of control as would naturally belong to the original creator.

I'm probably too tired right now to discuss legal stuff, but I seem to recall this is an american peculiarity anyway (like the copyright sign, which has no meaing outside the U.S) - the copyright to a book, for instance, is related to the absolute rights of the author (can't remember the reasoning behind that at the moment, though), therefore he cannot just sell it to a company. Or something.

Need. To. Sleep.

question...are cops on the dole?
Cops don't get paid by being awarded grants. They get a regular wage which is negotiated with the municipalities by their union.

Also, cops work for the goverment and carry out the will of the government. Do you propose that all artists should be municipal employees, civil servants, working for the government and carrying out the will of the government?

So...that can pretty much eliminate a good portion of the First Amendment then, eh? Since what need would there be for a prohibition against the government curtailing free speech, if all creative expression is at the service of the state?

And what if the particular thing an artist has to say is something the government has no need for, and therefore no incentive to pay for? Maybe some private citizens might like it, but if they're not paying us, how are we going to provide it to them and pay our bills at the same time?

Since you can't back up your claims then they will be assumed to be false until proven otherwise.
Since the proof is right here in the thread -- regardless of your refusal to look for it -- I don't really have a problem with that.

A twenty year copyright would leave a verifiable record of which works were made by whom if to get a copyright one had to register for it . If a work of art isn't in the record then its claim to validity should be considered spurious at best without very convincing evidence. Also with Rembrandt I didn't realize that artistic "styles" were considered IP. Given my relative ignorance of the law could you enlighten me to how much styles can be considered protected by IP? Also, I would think that there is now more concerned about authenticity so that records are drawn up for paintings and physical works of art and could be verified.
Again, as you would know if you had read all the posts in the thread, I have already listed what kinds of things IP in general and copyright in particular cover, and The Cat-Tribe actually posted direct links to government sites outlining in handy-dandy reference lists all the rules governing copyright, trademarks and patents, the three big segments of IP.

The reason style matters is because the IDEA is not what is copyrighted, but rather the unique PRODUCT that is the artist's work. It is not "my story is about two guys waiting for another guy." It is the particular and unique novel or play or movie that is made of that idea.

Like most people who complain about IP, you seem to have little idea of how IP laws actually work. Otherwise, you would know that, at its most basic, copyright is automatic upon the creation of any physical representation of the work -- a drawing, a manuscript, a recording, etc. Actual registration of the copyright with the Library of Congress is optional but recommended, especially with kinds of creative work which are affected by piracy or even just high levels of competitiveness, so that you can prove not only that you are the creator of the work but WHEN you created it.

But the more people settle for whatever's being produced for free, the less quantity demanded there is for art made for profit.
That's not true, actually. Taste varies hugely from person to person, and there are always people who want a certain level of quality in their art/entertainment products and who are willing to pay for what they want (even if only to make themselves feel rich).

The more people who think "hobby art" is good enough deal with each other (i.e. people who produce "hobby art") the easier it is for professional artists to find serious collectors/buyers, because our venues are not cluttered up with duds.

*NOTE: "Hobby art" is a bad term for what I mean, but it's the best I've come up with so far. There are actually very serious and talented artists who work only as amateurs by either choice or necessity. Being an amateur is not a measure of talent. What I mean is the kind of people who think that just anyone can do art, can just knock something out and it will be art that is good enough -- those people are the ones who are the duds.

EDIT: Besides, I don't think your unapologetically insulting tone towards Free Soviets was all that "appropriate" either...
I'm sure he is glad to have you standing by him, but I believe he is capable of putting me in my place on his own.

I'm not sure this is true. Sure, if I want a picture of an apple I'm going to Google search it, but if I want a painting for my wall I'm not getting a free poster off deviantart.
It's not really true. Those of us who have ever done any marketing know that there are different markets for different consumers -- which of course presupposes that there are different kinds of consumers. Consumers of free stuff off deviantart are not the sole and entire art market, but they do tend to clutter up art events and make it harder to find the people who will really buy serious art. So I love sites like deviantart because it keeps the non-buyers away from my exhibitions.

Cops don't get paid by being awarded grants.

neither do people on the dole. so now we have established that merely being funded socially doesn't put one 'on the dole', and can move on to the actually important features of the proposal

Do you propose that all artists should be municipal employees, civil servants, working for the government and carrying out the will of the government?

nope. grant funding does not work that way. neither does/would institutional support. the whole point is to increase innovation and creativity by freeing up intellectual resources and human potential. constraining things isn't in the cards.

and again, your opponents are not all idiots. it just makes you look foolish to assume they are.

And what if the particular thing an artist has to say is something the government has no need for, and therefore no incentive to pay for? Maybe some private citizens might like it, but if they're not paying us, how are we going to provide it to them and pay our bills at the same time?

very much like how one does this now? show me these people who would have had something to say, but the prospect of their work becoming part of the commons in 10 years prevented them from doing so.

EDIT: Besides, I don't think your unapologetically insulting tone towards Free Soviets was all that "appropriate" either...

its alright, M just wants my body

neither do people on the dole. so now we have established that merely being funded socially doesn't put one 'on the dole', and can move on to the actually important features of the proposal
Since you did not make clear before now precisely how artists were going to be supported by the state, why should I not have thought you meant for them to be given some kind of payout or stipend or benefit that would put a basic roof over their heads and provide them the means to buy nutritious food via taxpayer dollars while they just puttered about making art for other people take and use for free? In your initial comment you said nothing about grants. So, what, precisely, would those grants be for?

nope. grant funding does not work that way. neither does/would institutional support. the whole point is to increase innovation and creativity by freeing up intellectual resources and human potential.
HAHAHAHA! You're hilarious. Tell me, how many arts grants have you applied for? I work in the arts. I think I know how arts grant programs work. They are not what you think they are.

and again, your opponents are not all idiots. it just makes you look foolish to assume they are.
Then the fault is yours for misleading me (deliberately?) with your posts.

I assure you, FS, that I know you are not an idiot. But that does not stop you from (a) being wrong and (b) coming up with a really bad and unworkable idea.

very much like how one does this now? show me these people who would have had something to say, but the prospect of their work becoming part of the commons in 10 years prevented them from doing so.
Sure, just as soon as you show me where I said that what stops people from expressing themselves is the prospect of their work becoming part of the commons in 10 years.

The more people who think "hobby art" is good enough deal with each other (i.e. people who produce "hobby art") the easier it is for professional artists to find serious collectors/buyers, because our venues are not cluttered up with duds.
Fair enough, I guess I misunderstood your perspective. But I figured that the more abundant well-drawn art became on the Internet, the higher the numbers of people who would be inclined to settle for that; I could be wrong. It's just that I find the idea of art being more of a hobby than a job appealing, and find the idea of people defending certain laws because they're career artists less appealing...

I'm sure he is glad to have you standing by him, but I believe he is capable of putting me in my place on his own.
The point wasn't about him. It was about your hypocrisy in talking about what was "appropriate" while lashing out at him.

its alright, M just wants my body
What do you mean?

In your initial comment you said nothing about grants.

oh?

and here is an alternative. people get a lesser set of rights than we currently protect, with broader allowances for further intellectual/creative work using others' ideas, for some time - let's say 10 years. however, running alongside this would be a social support system, either in the form of government grants or institutional support, wherein people who agreed to accept some reliable income would release their creative/innovative works directly into the commons, carrying only certain obligations of acknowledgment and such from future users.

HAHAHAHA! You're hilarious. Tell me, how many arts grants have you applied for? I work in the arts. I think I know how arts grant programs work.

again with the mistaking what currently is for the possible

Sure, just as soon as you show me where I said that what stops people from expressing themselves is the prospect of their work becoming part of the commons in 10 years.

it is the implication of your response in the context of what i tossed out as a quick and dirty proposal. but given that you apparently didn't actually remember what the proposal was when you wrote what you did, all is forgiven.

Since the proof is right here in the thread -- regardless of your refusal to look for it -- I don't really have a problem with that.

Good since you are unable or unwilling to find the proof I can only assume it doesn't exist.

Again, as you would know if you had read all the posts in the thread, I have already listed what kinds of things IP in general and copyright in particular cover, and The Cat-Tribe actually posted direct links to government sites outlining in handy-dandy reference lists all the rules governing copyright, trademarks and patents, the three big segments of IP.

The reason style matters is because the IDEA is not what is copyrighted, but rather the unique PRODUCT that is the artist's work. It is not "my story is about two guys waiting for another guy." It is the particular and unique novel or play or movie that is made of that idea.

Like most people who complain about IP, you seem to have little idea of how IP laws actually work. Otherwise, you would know that, at its most basic, copyright is automatic upon the creation of any physical representation of the work -- a drawing, a manuscript, a recording, etc. Actual registration of the copyright with the Library of Congress is optional but recommended, especially with kinds of creative work which are affected by piracy or even just high levels of competitiveness, so that you can prove not only that you are the creator of the work but WHEN you created it.

You do not seem to realize that this thread is not so about how IP currently operates so much as how it shouldoperate. Think normative property rights. How IP currently operates is largely irrelevant to normative claims. The requirement that copyrights should be registered to be enforced would cover your objections that of artistic dilution and question of legacy. You also don't seem to understand that that artistic works, the aspect of them that is copyable, is information. Another way to think of information is as an amalgamation of ideas.

its alright, M just wants my body
Your avatar is hot. I'd want to date him if he didn't talk like you. :p

Is that Trotsky? It looks like Trotsky. He was the hottest of the Reds.

Fair enough, I guess I misunderstood your perspective. But I figured that the more abundant well-drawn art became on the Internet, the higher the numbers of people who would be inclined to settle for that; I could be wrong. It's just that I find the idea of art being more of a hobby than a job appealing, and find the idea of people defending certain laws because they're career artists less appealing...
Please explain how career artists defending copyright interferes with your or anyone else's ability to be a hobbyist artist.

The point wasn't about him. It was about your hypocrisy in talking about what was "appropriate" while lashing out at him.
I'll make a note to lose sleep tonight over having failed to impress you with my manners.

What do you mean?
He means I want to eat his liver. I keep following him around with a knife and some fava beans.

Your avatar is hot. I'd want to date him if he didn't talk like you. :p

Is that Trotsky? It looks like Trotsky. He was the hottest of the Reds.

I prefer Stalin. There's nothing like the death of millions to get me hot. :D

I'll make a note to lose sleep tonight over having failed to impress you with my manners.
I think the point, Muravyets, is that your manner can be very abrasive. People are going to respond in kind.

Its all well and good if you don't care, but you've indicated in the past that you are baffled by this behavior.

oh?

Originally Posted by Free Soviets
and here is an alternative. people get a lesser set of rights than we currently protect, with broader allowances for further intellectual/creative work using others' ideas, for some time - let's say 10 years. however, running alongside this would be a social support system, either in the form of government grants or institutional support, wherein people who agreed to accept some reliable income would release their creative/innovative works directly into the commons, carrying only certain obligations of acknowledgment and such from future users.
What kind of support system?

What kind of grants or institutional support? The military is a government institution. Welfare programs are a government institution. The NEA is a government institution.

What constitutes "some reliable income"? Benefits? What do you have to do to qualify for the benefits? A salary? What kind of employee would the artist be? Who would they work for? What would be the job title and responsibilities?

Release their work directly into the commons? But not be paid by consumers who use the work for whatever purpose (because they'd be getting "some reliable income" from the state)? So, in other words, putter around in their studios doing whatever they want while waiting for their government checks? Just like I said the first time I dismissed this idea.

again with the mistaking what currently is for the possible
Again with the pretending that I have not been absolutely clear about what I am talking about and what I am interested in talking about and why I am interested in talking about it, since the beginning of this nonsense of yours.

Remember the time, long ago, when I told you the reason I hate you is that you remind me of an ex-boyfriend who loved to jerk me around with squirmy circular BS just like you do? You still remind me of him, and I still hate both of you for it.

it is the implication of your response in the context of what i tossed out as a quick and dirty proposal. but given that you apparently didn't actually remember what the proposal was when you wrote what you did, all is forgiven.
In other words, you just made it up and in fact I said no such thing.

I think the point, Muravyets, is that your manner can be very abrasive. People are going to respond in kind.

Its all well and good if you don't care, but you've indicated in the past that you are baffled by this behavior.

This is a bit true. Sometimes she makes me look diplomatic and charming! :p

Please explain how career artists defending copyright interferes with your or anyone else's ability to be a hobbyist artist.
What the... what? How was I even implying that it would interfere with that ability? I was saying I didn't like how it seemed like the people defending copyright were motivated by having a career that relied on it... but come to think of it, that should if anything be relieving, if only because it explains it.

In case you hadn't noticed, I had already expressed other reasons in this thread for not liking copyright, such as that someone just so happening to be the first to be able to claim an idea as property is a matter of circumstance, etc... care for me to link specifically to those posts for you?

I'll make a note to lose sleep tonight over having failed to impress you with my manners.
:rolleyes:

The point was not about the rudeness in and of itself. The point was about inconsistency. I believe in being insulting towards insulting people. You were insulting towards Free Soviets, so I was insulting towards you.