It Is Time To Stop Pretending To Endorse The Copyright Monopoly?

[Eriol]

An article by the head of the Swedesh Pirate Party: www.techdirt.com/articles/20120102/16374417254/it-is-time-to-stop-pretending-to-endorse-copyright-monopoly.shtml

Some very interesting points made. I'm not sure if abolition is the solution, but I'm definitely not 100% against that concept, as I was in previous years. Too many things have happened to make me think that it may be a viable solution.

Still, worth reading IMO, along with some of the links in the article that say how people will still get paid, etc.

 

[sixpackshaker]

Monopoly is nearly a 100 year old game, the copyright should have been lost decades ago.

 

[strawman]

Copyright is just a shadow of what is coming - eventually, if companies have their way, you will NOT be able to run a program that they do not approve:

 

[Dave]

Whoa.

 

[Eriol]

That was a really great video. Thanks for linking it here.

And fundamentally, I do agree with him. This is something that will become more and more an issue in the future. When personal-sized devices can do literally anything that we can think of at the drop of a hat, what restrictions will be placed upon us? When each of us has "supercomputer" power at perhaps the end of a thought, what will the world look like? Who will try and restrain us?

Big thoughts, but a great video.


Though I will say that it's to the side of the specific debate. I guess the originally-linked article could have had a discussion even in a non-internet age. As the original article said, these monopolistic practices should have gone away in the 1800s. It'd be interesting to think about what type of world we'd have today if that had happened.

 

[strawman]

I don't agree that copyright should go away. The industries and business models based on copyright create things people want, and were one to remove copyright completely they would not be able to find another model - they would die.

I would be all for reducing copyright, and making it more reasonable, but like democracy - while it's not a great system, it's the best we have.

Keep in mind that in the times when copyright didn't exist, monarchs and rulers would pay for artists, minstrels, and others to produce works that the public could enjoy. There wasn't much need for copyright because some of the artists were supported by their work, and further even if they could have sold reproductions they would have an extraordinarily limited audience. Now we live in a time where an even larger percentage of the population can support themselves solely through their art - a product which they can sell only because they have the right to control it distribution. Further, reproduction is trivial and inexpensive. A bigger audience, and cheaper production means that you can't easily compare the 1600's without copyright to today with copyright and extrapolate that we can do the same thing.

If we remove that right, I'm not convinced that it would 1) allow current artists to continue to completely support themselves with their art and 2) allow even more artists to support themselves with their art.

I use the word "artist" for anyone producing a creative work such as music, movie, painting, writing, etc. Things very near to the top of maslow's hierarchy.

 

[@Li3n]

A bigger audience, and cheaper production means that you can't easily compare the 1600's without copyright to today with copyright and extrapolate that we can do the same thing.

Yes, unlike the 1600 there isn't much of an audience for live performances nowadays...

And it's not like France once passed a law that made painters get a cut from each sale of their art because the paintings where selling for millions while they starved, a situation that existed for long enough to give birth to a stereotype that still exist today... and yet art was still being made just fine.

(do note that i don't disagree that some copyright is needed, if just for the work to be properly attributed, i just find your argument as to why flawed... which btw doesn't meant it's conclusion is wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy)

 

[GasBandit]

I disagree with Steinman. The idea that the abolition of copyright would mean the death of music, film, literature and art is plainly erroneous. There would be a demand for such things, and people would figure out how to turn a profit supplying that demand. Would it thin out the herd? Most likely. But there's more than enough chaff that needs to be separated from the wheat, in my opinion. And if your song is good, there is absolutely no barrier to you turning an easy profit by selling it online with no DRM - that's already happening. It's been proven that once it is easier (and the price is reasonable) to purchase the song direct from the artist than it is to pirate it (with the risks and extra effort involved there), the money just flows. Steam exemplifies this for software as well. If it weren't for dinosaurs who refuse to let go of a dying business model, I'm certain a similar arrangement could be made for movies as well. Netflix ALMOST gets it right.. Some kind of $10 direct2drive-4-movies would be good too.

 

[@Li3n]

I think the problem you're ignoring Gas, as are the others too, is not people not buying, but the original reason for copyright... other's stealing the work and claiming it as their own...

Even in the most utopian post scarcity communist society that would not be something that people would look kindly on...

 

[strawman]

It's been proven that once it is easier (and the price is reasonable) to purchase the song direct from the artist than it is to pirate it (with the risks and extra effort involved there), the money just flows.

What risks and extra effort? If you remove copyright, you can get all the songs anyone has a digital copy of for free as fast as you can download them. Why bother going to any one artist's website and actually paying them so you can only get an album's worth of material, when it's going to be freely available - and probably faster given bandwidth costs - along with all the other music created recently?

I would love to see the "proven" part of your claim though. If that is the case, then I really have no qualms with removing copyright.

 

[GasBandit]

I think the problem you're ignoring Gas, as are the others too, is not people not buying, but the original reason for copyright... other's stealing the work and claiming it as their own...

Even in the most utopian post scarcity communist society that would not be something that people would look kindly on...

I missed where that was an actual part of this discussion- especially no in steinman's post, which is what I was referencing. It seems to me that could easily be addressed by other rules or laws. Though, even that is out of hand, as many heartbroken, tear-streaked little girls can attest to after Disney and Mattel's lawyers got done with them for having the audacity to put up a website talking about how much they liked princesses or barbie.

But, when it comes to straight out piracy, here's the bare truth - it's going to happen, and you can't stop it. Nothing you can do within your power will stop someone who is determined to pirate an intangible property - a song, a performance, a story. You can only hope that your particular way of conveying that art convinces people they should compensate you for it... and a sure way to prevent that from happening is to saddle your art with 90 tons of DRM which makes piracy, with all its hassles and risks of viruses, lawsuits et al, look the easier option.
Added at: 16:20

What risks and extra effort? If you remove copyright, you can get all the songs anyone has a digital copy of for free as fast as you can download them. Why bother going to any one artist's website and actually paying them so you can only get an album's worth of material, when it's going to be freely available - and probably faster given bandwidth costs - along with all the other music created recently?

I would love to see the "proven" part of your claim though. If that is the case, then I really have no qualms with removing copyright.

The risks and extra effort is easily summed up with one word -Limewire. Think of allllll the horrible things that have happened because of it.

As for the proven part of it, that's easy as well. Amazon's MP3 store is DRM free.

 

[@Li3n]

I missed where that was an actual part of this discussion- especially no in steinman's post, which is what I was referencing. It seems to me that could easily be addressed by other rules or laws. Though, even that is out of hand, as many heartbroken, tear-streaked little girls can attest to after Disney and Mattel's lawyers got done with them for having the audacity to put up a website talking about how much they liked princesses or barbie.

That's why i mentioned you weren't the only one ignoring it...

And by definition any laws that would govern that would be copyright laws...

it's going to happen, and you can't stop it

Well Splinter Cell Chaos Theory wasn't cracked until a year and a few months... so you can stop it... if it's actually worth it... that's another thing.

 

[GasBandit]

That's why i mentioned you weren't the only one ignoring it...

And by definition any laws that would govern that would be copyright laws...





Well Splinter Cell Chaos Theory wasn't cracked until a year and a few months... so you can stop it... if it's actually worth it... that's another thing.

Heh, yes, well, that's the stipulation... if your game isn't even worth PIRATING, well.....

And yes, such things do exist. In Abundance.

 

[strawman]

As for the proven part of it, that's easy as well. Amazon's MP3 store is DRM free.

Amazon's MP3 store exists because of the copyright laws. If you completely remove copyright law, then it would not work. At all.

I agree with you that DRM is useless and stupid.

I disagree with the idea that we should get rid of copyright.

Are you misreading my posts, because I haven't said anything about DRM, other than my first video post.

 

[@Li3n]

Heh, yes, well, that's the stipulation... if your game isn't even worth PIRATING, well.....

There's a reason why i went with that game: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splinter_Cell_Chaos_Theory#Reception

Amazon's MP3 store exists because of the copyright laws. If you completely remove copyright law, then it would not work. At all.

Without copyright Amazon would keep all the profits... so why wouldn't they sell mp3's?

 

[GasBandit]

Amazon's MP3 store exists because of the copyright laws. If you completely remove copyright law, then it would not work. At all.

I agree with you that DRM is useless and stupid.

I disagree with the idea that we should get rid of copyright.

Are you misreading my posts, because I haven't said anything about DRM, other than my first video post.

DRM is part and parcel with copyright these days. Your primary worry, if I read your post correctly, was that artists would not be able to make a living from writing, singing and such if their work was freely available to pirate. My argument is, as DRM is largely on its way out, we're already demonstrating that not enforcing copyright with end users doesn't destroy artistic expression as a business. In fact, it's doing gangbusters. Now, what @li3n said about combatting knockoffs may still come into play, but the abuse of copyright has become so rampant that we accept it as a part of daily life.

Maybe I am misreading your post... are you primarily concerned about IP theft as opposed to piracy? (IE, I sing a Ben Folds Five song and sell it as my own?)
Added at: 16:47

There's a reason why i went with that game: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splinter_Cell_Chaos_Theory#Reception

Seems a lot of people feel differently about splinter cell games than me, I guess. But even that being the case, given the recent defeat of other ubisoft titles' DRM that even included requirements to "phone home" via internet, I'd say it was a rare one-off mostly attributable to pirate laziness/error rather than an example of the reliable ability to stop piracy with DRM.

 

[@Li3n]

Seems a lot of people feel differently about splinter cell games than me, I guess. But even that being the case, given the recent defeat of other ubisoft titles' DRM that even included requirements to "phone home" via internet, I'd say it was a rare one-off mostly attributable to pirate laziness/error rather than an example of the reliable ability to stop piracy with DRM.

In my experience the phoning home DRM are actually less effective... frankly at thins point i think they're more about more control over the product and getting user info then against piracy...

But my main point was more about how the DRM working didn't really increase sales by that much... so even if it works, like for Chaos Theory, it's not a strong argument anyway.

 

[Eriol]

Without copyright Amazon would keep all the profits... so why wouldn't they sell mp3's?

This is it IMO about what to be concerned about, is how artists would get compensated for their work? The distributers would still find a way to make money, as you mentioned here, but how would the original artist? It's unlikely people would want to investigate 500 different websites when one would aggregate. That model works now sans DRM (drm was always a bad idea) and I think that's what Gas was talking about, how DRM is unnecessary and hurtful, and now that there's a legal way to get it in a good form, that will dominate, but we're not talking about that. We're talking about eliminating copyright, so that downloading everything ever produced by anybody is fully legal. So get it ALL from your biggest site, and call it a day. So how do you make money while producing content?

And that's where you go back to the original forms of music: live performance. The recording industry essentially makes money off of single performances, and then re-sells it forever. A popular artist, to make money, would actually have to KEEP PRODUCING CONTENT, via touring in the case of music. Yes performance rather than performing for a sound stage would become their income, at least in great part. I don't have a large problem with this, as it goes via the "you have to work for money" model of income, rather than the "create something once, let the money roll in" model. I have a fundamental objection to that type of thing, but that's just me.

 

[strawman]

Without copyright Amazon would keep all the profits... so why wouldn't they sell mp3's?

They might try, and some might sell, but 1) the people who created the content wouldn't get any money (thus no incentive to continue to create ocntent, not to mention that it costs them money to do it well) and 2) who would buy it from amazon if they could also get it for free, easily?

we're already demonstrating that not enforcing copyright with end users doesn't destroy artistic expression as a business.

I would like you to post all of your digital music library for free on your website, then assert that copyright is not being enforced.

Of course it's being enforced. Just because some sites are doing well by selling copyrighted works without DRM doesn't mean they don't go after people who break copyright.

I'm asking you to show me the proof that completely abolishing all copyright laws would still result in artists being supported, which is what I understand your earlier assertion to be.

Right now your assertion seems to be that elimination DRM while maintaining copyright law has shown to be profitable. I don't disagree with that.

I am not convinced that eliminating copyright completely will allow art to be profitable enough to allow such a wide consumer choice of entertainment while still paying many of the artists a full living wage from their art.

So, again, are you in favor of abolishing all copyright law, and if so what gives you the confidence that artists would continue to have incentive to create and produce works - especially expensive works such as blockbuster films - when the instant they show it to anyone, everyone has free and clear access to the work without payment?

 

[GasBandit]

I am not convinced that eliminating copyright completely will allow art to be profitable enough to allow such a wide consumer choice of entertainment while still paying many of the artists a full living wage from their art.

I'm not entirely convinced most of the people making a "living wage" for their art... should be.

So, again, are you in favor of abolishing all copyright law, and if so what gives you the confidence that artists would continue to have incentive to create and produce works - especially expensive works such as blockbuster films - when the instant they show it to anyone, everyone has free and clear access to the work without payment?

Well, there's parts of copyright law that probably need to be maintained in some fashion, but only in instances where money is directly changing hands... and even then, at a severely reduced timeframe from what it is now. Amazon should not be able to put together an unlimited catalog and sell MP3s without regard for the artist, though I do think even if that were the case that it would not be impossible to make money as an artist, and I also think there would be a large backlash against amazon or any other such retailer that behaves in such a way.

But, as the original article says (and I didn't watch the hour long video, I'm at work), there comes a time where the ridiculousness of the absurdity propagating through the current system comes to a point where that system needs to be scrapped and completely rewritten. Written in such a way that favors the artist, and not the RIAA/MPAA/distributor. Replace copyright law that states that no profit can be garnered from an item except by its creator(s), full stop. An online mp3 store would really then just turn out to be a specialized webhost, probably paid a flat rate for its hosting services. There are other ways it could be done as well.

So, am I in favor of abolishing copyright law and leaving it a void? No. But I am in favor of scrapping it and starting over.

 

[@Li3n]

2) who would buy it from amazon if they could also get it for free, easily?

I like how you imply that you can't do that right now anyway...

While not being tech savy will still be an impediment, lack of copyright won't make songs d/l themselves, after all.

1) the people who created the content wouldn't get any money (thus no incentive to continue to create ocntent, not to mention that it costs them money to do it well)

Yes, i too remember the lack of music before the 19th century.... and remember how awful poor black people where at music back when they barely made enough money to feed themselves from live shows... (and as i recall posting personal recordings of live shows is still legal, innit).

So much better now that everyone autotunes their shit so they can make moar moniez...


Sure, there'd be less music made overall (just the lack of manufactured bands alone...), but it certainly won't die out...
Added at: 07:13

And that's where you go back to the original forms of music: live performance. The recording industry essentially makes money off of single performances, and then re-sells it forever. A popular artist, to make money, would actually have to KEEP PRODUCING CONTENT, via touring in the case of music. Yes performance rather than performing for a sound stage would become their income, at least in great part. I don't have a large problem with this, as it goes via the "you have to work for money" model of income, rather than the "create something once, let the money roll in" model. I have a fundamental objection to that type of thing, but that's just me.

Last i heard most artists make more money from live shows then song sales even now...

 

[AshburnerX]

Last i heard most artists make more money from live shows then song sales even now...

This has more to do with the fact that they get a MUCH larger cut of the profits for merchandising on t-shirts, wristbands, and the like than they do on CDs and iTunes. That is because making these objects doesn't require the involvement of the label on any meaningful level... it's something you and your manager can do yourselves.

Really, if you want to really look at what is causing artists to lose money, you can stop looking at the pirates and look straight at the labels instead. They're the ones who've institutionalized the robbery of artist intellectual property.

 

[@Li3n]

Then again if they could have made the same money witohut labels, labels wouldn't exist anymore...

SOON!!!

 

[AshburnerX]

Then again if they could have made the same money witohut labels, labels wouldn't exist anymore...

SOON!!!

Labels were necessary when getting your music out to the public actually took a significant amount of effort. You had to get in touch with radio and television stations, book show venues, hire a road crew, print records and other memorabilia... and that's not even getting into recording the music. Back in the day, this was hard. You literally had to know the right people to make any of it happen.

These days? Thanks to internet, you can basically do all of it from your home. There are no more gatekeepers to the industry. Thus, the labels are going to die or further specialize like they already are.

 

[@Li3n]

Yeah, we're still clearly not there, see Justin Bieber vs any internet distributed band... which is why i said SOON!

 

[Eriol]

Yeah, we're still clearly not there, see Justin Bieber vs any internet distributed band... which is why i said SOON!

I can give you shivers: what if "that person" is what young people these days actually want in music, and not something (anything) better?

Yes I just de-railed my own thread. Isn't the first time, and won't be the last.

 

[Azurephoenix]

I can give you shivers: what if "that person" is what young people these days actually want in music, and not something (anything) better?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[ScytheRexx]

 

[Terrik]

I can give you shivers: what if "that person" is what young people these days actually want in music, and not something (anything) better?

Yes I just de-railed my own thread. Isn't the first time, and won't be the last.

I don't...I don't think he's really all that terrible, all things considered. I sing karaoke all the time in China and when I put some of the stuff we use to think was popular/cool, I suddenly feel I have no room to talk, lawl.

 

[GasBandit]

I don't...I don't think he's really all that terrible, all things considered. I sing karaoke all the time in China and when I put some of the stuff we use to think was popular/cool, I suddenly feel I have no room to talk, lawl.

 

[Hailey Knight]

Sure do wish Gassy's image wasn't broken.

 

[PatrThom]

Heh. I just tweeted the article about that talk from the blogger's own site.
It's rather thought-provoking. And by "thought-provoking," I mean "scary."

As far as copyright goes, I believe the current 70-year limit* is probably excessive, but I believe it could be justified by putting an end to 'hoarding.' If you don't offer your product for sale for at least 30 consecutive days AND you then suspend availability of your product for more than a year, then you don't deserve to keep the copyright. Windows 95? Theoretically this would mean you could now copy it all you want, nobody cares about it any more. To avoid this, Microsoft would either have to make it available for purchase online from their website and continue to support it, or else admit they're done with it and turn it over to the public domain if they don't want the hassle. CS3/CS4/CS5? Same thing.

Make changes to your thing? Each revision is covered separately, so if you release Death Touch: The Ultimate Director's Cut and you want to maintain copyright on the original Death Touch, then you need to continue to offer the original Death Touch for sale. You can suspend sales of the original Death Touch for 364 days to promote the UDC version if you want, but you better have it back on the shelves by day 365 or else you lose the rights to the original presentation. This should cut down on all the Masterpiece Edition/Extended Edition/Comment edition/Limited Edition dilution nonsense that goes on now.

Format shift would not constitute an additional edition, so re-releasing a Blu-Ray version of Death Touch would not restart the clock unless that Blu-Ray version is in 3-D or something. Any new commentary or special features on that Blu-Ray disc would have their own, timer-starts-at-zero coverage, but the Feature Presentation's copyright expiration date would still be tied to the original release date of the DVD/VHS/Opening Day. Yes, you heard that right, that means the copyright timer starts on the Date Of First Sale. If it's a direct-to-DVD title, then fine, but otherwise your timer starts on first exhibition.

You hear me, Disney? No. More. Disney. Vault. You are either selling movies, or you are giving them away. Movies you regret...like Song of the South? Too bad, you can only hide it away from The Public for one year before it goes public domain and can be freely shared. Orphan works? No longer an issue. If a company goes out of business or is acquired, the creditors/new owners need to make a decision regarding current product lineup: Either continue to offer the original product for sale, or kill it entirely, knowing that your control over that product will irrevocably end in one year. And no one-minute unannounced online sales to keep your claim going, per rule 1 you have to offer it for a minimum of 30 days in order to 'renew' for one more year.

And don't even get me started on what this would mean for broadcast rights. Oh, the problems it would solve...

EDIT: TL;DR: A company/creator shouldn't be allowed to complain that piracy is hurting their profits/income IF they are not currently marketing the item being pirated.

--Patrick
*or whatever it's up to now.

 

[AshburnerX]

Disney's problem isn't that they'll lose control of their movies, it's that they'll lose control of their iconic characters. Unfortunately, they can't keep this up forever. It's going to happen sooner or later.

 

[@Li3n]

I can give you shivers: what if "that person" is what young people these days actually want in music, and not something (anything) better?

Hahahahahahahha... people knowing what they want, good one.

Seriously though, i know people that used to listen to horrible music (Bieber is nothing) at the start of high school just because it was a "thing"... the smarter ones even admited they didn't really like it, they just listened to it "socially"...

Disney's problem isn't that they'll lose control of their movies, it's that they'll lose control of their iconic characters. Unfortunately, they can't keep this up forever. It's going to happen sooner or later.

The way i remember it that's not true... especially since they're still using the TM for those characters.

Basically is Steamboat Willie goes into public domain, only the video itself is public domain... which it already is in some places.

And the funny thing is that Steamboat Willie was a parody of a Buster Keaton film...

EDIT: And it looks like i'm wrong, people would be able to use Mickey, at most they couldn't use the name in the title and marketing stuff, like the whole Captain Marvel/Shazam thing...

 

[GasBandit]

Ubisoft DRM prevents reviewer from reviewing (literally, technologically, not contractually).