Follow TV Tropes

Following

Copyright laws

Go To

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#26: May 11th 2011 at 11:50:13 AM

It disturbs me how few people seem to understand what the point of copyright law is. It's not to screw over the customer. It's to ensure that the people who create the works can actually make money off of it. If copyright goes away, then it becomes impossible to be a professional [artist/author/filmmaker/etc] because you can't support yourself with your creations.

And That's Terrible.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
EternalSeptember Since: Sep, 2010
#27: May 11th 2011 at 12:04:32 PM

Copyright will be over, the question is, how will industries function after it happens?

The most natural scenario is that most industries will become a lot smaller, simpler and indier, like the current remains of PC gaming.

Most industries can find lesser alternate revenues: concerts for music, merch for anime, ads for TV series, and for smaller pc games. Novelists don't need a budget for the production itself, so if they really want to tell something, they can still write it as a hobby. Hollywood is doomed, though.

The second scenario is that the industries will drastically and consciously reorganize themselves: for example gaming console hardware will be sold for a high profit margin, so the companies can publish games for free, and pay third parties to publish games for free: these games would sell more consoles, that would bring more profit. (inverted razor & blades, basically)

Hollywood could be somehow reorganized around ads and merch, or something.

The third scenario is communism, at least in that sector. State would collect tax money, and redistribute that tax money between the creators. Effectively, media would be state property, but as long as the redistribution is based on audience numbers, it would avoid the pitfalls of planned economy, the market would still dictate production, it would be the same as now, except that all of us would pay for media in general, instead of some of us for specific works.

Yej See ALL the stars! from <0,1i> Since: Mar, 2010
See ALL the stars!
#28: May 11th 2011 at 12:08:15 PM

If copyright goes away, then it becomes impossible to be a professional [artist/author/filmmaker/etc] because you can't support yourself with your creations.
But that's clearly false. Musicians can make quite a lot of money off of concerts and merchandise and the like. See JoCo, who licenses his stuff under Creative Commons.

Also, I am being forced if I want to partake of new content at all. All blu-ray players, as part of the license, are required to implement HDCP, which prevents me from controlling media I have purchased.

edited 11th May '11 12:11:37 PM by Yej

Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.
blueharp Since: Dec, 1969
#29: May 11th 2011 at 12:09:13 PM

Performance artists are one thing, but how many people will go to see a Storyteller these days?

SilentReverence adopting kitteh from 3 tiles right 1 tile up Since: Jan, 2010
adopting kitteh
#30: May 11th 2011 at 12:12:03 PM

↑↑↑↑Nothing wrong with that, but that one thing can not come at the cost of the other. There are many ways to protect an author and invite him to create more work without screwing over people. Heck, even if the current system holds, it's just a matter of keeping it under check: higher fines and auto-class suit for companies that enforce DRM with viruses, no "Mickey Mouse for perpetuity", offer a relatively long (like, 5 years for tech, 20 years for arts) one-term only period for exclusiveness and/or price dictation by the author in exchange for the complete release to the public and complete freedom to copy afterwards, etc.

And thanks Yej for saving me having to call out that "don't like it don't buy it" bullshit argument. [lol]

edited 11th May '11 12:13:06 PM by SilentReverence

Fanfic Recs orwellianretcon'd: cutlocked for committee or for Google?
blueharp Since: Dec, 1969
#31: May 11th 2011 at 12:15:28 PM

Copyright isn't just a matter of copies though, it's also derived works. Some of it can be protected with Trademarks, but other parts, no I can't see 20 years being sufficient.

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#32: May 11th 2011 at 12:16:55 PM

Copyright will be over, the question is, how will industries function after it happens?
The end of copyright is the end of professional artists. Performance art would be an exception, so live music and theater (and possibly TV shows) would still be around, but movies, books, video games, and any other medium that requires a large up-front investment would become exclusively the realm of hobbyists.

Whether you think that's a good thing or a bad thing is up to you, but that's what abolishing copyright would do. It's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Also, I am being forced if I want to partake of new content at all.
Then you have a fucking choice to make: deal with stuff like HDCP, or don't partake of new content. No one owes you new content. If you want it, then you have to get it on the content-provider's terms. Stop pretending like they're somehow violating your rights by not giving you what you want.

edited 11th May '11 12:25:41 PM by NativeJovian

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Yej See ALL the stars! from <0,1i> Since: Mar, 2010
See ALL the stars!
#33: May 11th 2011 at 12:20:30 PM

The end of copyright is the end of professional artists.
Copyright became unenforceable the instant all recorded media became isomorphic to the natural numbers.

...Oops. tongue

Also, what do you mean, "require a large, up-front investment?" None of the arts you mentioned require that. They require that if you want to be mainstream, but that is not a requirement to getting published at all. Indeed, publishing is becoming easier and easier.

If I want to publish a book, I write it and then give it to Amazon, or just put it up on my own ad-supported website. If I want to publish a video game, I write it and give it a website. This requires maybe, $10 on top of actually making the thing.

edited 11th May '11 12:24:44 PM by Yej

Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.
EternalSeptember Since: Sep, 2010
#34: May 11th 2011 at 12:20:42 PM

[up][up]Care to explain why couldn't any of the things that I listed happen instead?

Also, books were written, long before copyright laws existed.

edited 11th May '11 12:25:46 PM by EternalSeptember

Yej See ALL the stars! from <0,1i> Since: Mar, 2010
See ALL the stars!
#35: May 11th 2011 at 12:23:50 PM

Then you have a fucking choice to make: deal with stuff like HDCP, or don't partake of new content. No one owes you new content. If you want it, then you have to get it on the content-provider's terms. Stop pretending like they're somehow violating your rights by not giving you what you want.
You're right that nobody owes me new content, but that's not my point. My point is that I should not be "buying" hardware that is fighting me. If I buy a disc of data, I should be allowed to use that data to any extent I see fit within the law. I'm not; HDCP prevents* me from format-shifting my discs for my own personal use, for instance. The machine I am buying, not leasing, nor renting, nor borrowing is not working for the purpose I bought it for, i.e. to play media for me, when and where I want it to.

Imagine you've bought a new computer, but written in very small print in the license agreement, MS forbids you from using any open-source software, with erasure of the HDD if you try to avoid it. That is clearly not a legitimate business practice.

edited 11th May '11 12:29:58 PM by Yej

Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#36: May 11th 2011 at 12:37:11 PM

Copyright became unenforceable the instant all recorded media became isomorphic to the natural numbers.
I have no idea what the second half of that sentence means, but copyright is far from unenforceable, even now. You don't see people selling bootleg copies of stuff, do you?

Also, what do you mean, "require a large, up-front investment?" None of the arts you mentioned require that.
What's the average budget of a movie these days? Or a video game? How long does it take to write an average novel, and how much is the author's and editor's time worth? In order for people to do any of those things professionally (as in, for a living), then they need to be sure that they can make money off of it. If they're paying the bills with a day job and doing their filming/writing/game-making on the side, then that's certainly possible without copyright — but doing things that way also makes it impossible to get the sort of movies/novels/video games we're used to getting.

Care to explain why couldn't any of the things that I listed happen instead?
Nothing I said contradicted anything you said.

Also, books were written long before copyright laws existed.
There were books, yes, but were there professional authors?

If I buy a disc of data, I should be allowed to use that data to any extent I see fit within the law. I'm not; HDCP prevents me from format-shifting my discs for my own personal use, for instance.
Tough cookies. You're legally allowed to format-shift things that you buy. The people selling it to you are not legally obligated to make it easy for you to do so. So you have a choice: buy new content and fight with it over format-shifting, only buy stuff without DRM, or run the (admittedly small) risk of pirating it. At no point are content providers obligated to give you new DRM-free content, and insisting that they should is silly.

Hell, I could easily see DRM and such becoming worse in a copyright-free environment, because the protections that a content provider builds in to their content would be the only protections available to them.

Imagine you've bought a new computer, but written in very small print in the license agreement, MS forbids you from using any open-source software, with erasure of the HDD if you try to avoid it. That is clearly not a legitimate business practice.
Ignoring the question of anti-competitive behavior for the moment (which is beyond the scope of the analogy), it's entirely legit. And seems like a very good reason to not use Microsoft products, to me.

edited 11th May '11 12:37:54 PM by NativeJovian

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Karkadinn Karkadinn from New Orleans, Louisiana Since: Jul, 2009
Karkadinn
#37: May 11th 2011 at 12:37:30 PM

Trying to enforce copyright by dint of outrage is, in any case, a lost cause. Compare to pot and the war on drugs. Compare to premarital sex and monogamy. You can't make people agree with you by getting angry at them for behaving differently. And at some point, for some issues, you have to accept that it's just going to happen whether you like it or not, regardless of any disincentives and punishments attached to it. You can either adapt to a future that isn't ideal with a sigh and a shrug, or be dragged into it kicking and screaming.

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.
EternalSeptember Since: Sep, 2010
#38: May 11th 2011 at 12:52:21 PM

Nothing I said contradicted anything you said.

You said that "The end of copyright is the end of professional artists."

I said that after the end of copyright, artists can still live from hardware-based profits, ad revenues, state-fundings, merch, or a combination of the above.

What's the average budget of a movie these days? Or a video game

If that's what you mean, you need to rephrase your original statement as "the end of professional media as we knew it".

Otherwise, this statement contains two loaded assumptions, that only contemporary, and average (at minimum) budgets are professional.

The published games of the 90s were professional, and currently there are professional indie films, that actually return their costs, even if these costs are in six digits.

Blockbuster =/= professional

edited 11th May '11 12:57:22 PM by EternalSeptember

thatguythere47 Since: Jul, 2010
#39: May 11th 2011 at 12:54:10 PM

You know what's bullshit? My friend loans me a copy of GTA 4 and it's legal. My 2000 friends in the states give a copy of GTA 4 and now it's illegal. There needs to be a fundamental rewrite of how copyright works.

Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#40: May 11th 2011 at 1:05:07 PM

artists can still live from hardware-based profits, ad revenues, state-fundings, merch, or a combination of the above.
I can't see hardware sales driving the video game industry — it's completely backwards from how things work now, and no one will buy hardware if there's no software worth getting. Ad revenues only work in certain formats — periodicals, online, and television, mostly — which I didn't say would die off (but then, you'd be hard pressed to call most magazines or newspapers "art"). State funding is a possibility but couldn't nearly make up for anything close to what we have now, and many forms of merch (C Ds, DV Ds, posters, etc) are protected by copyright as well, while other forms (t-shirts and stuff with logos or labels on them) are protected by trademark instead, which is rather similar in concept to copyright (they just apply to different things — names, labels, and logos instead of works).

Blockbuster =/= professional
And indie =/= amateur. Indie productions benefit from copyright protection just as much as mainstream ones do.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Yej See ALL the stars! from <0,1i> Since: Mar, 2010
See ALL the stars!
#41: May 11th 2011 at 1:07:30 PM

I have no idea what the second half of that sentence means, but copyright is far from unenforceable, even now. You don't see people selling bootleg copies of stuff, do you?
I see them giving away bootleg copies for free, at* cost to themselves.

And that sentence said, when translated out of Big Words, creative works are numbers. By making transmission of works in some circumstance illegal, you're making transmission of certain numbers illegal, and that is inherently ridiculous.

You're legally allowed to format-shift things that you buy. The people selling it to you are not legally obligated to make it easy for you to do so.
If they actually succeeded at the impossible task they're doing, I couldn't do format-shifting at all. I do not believe manufacturers are allowed to arbitrarily lock down things in accordance with their own interests and only their own interests. It almost certainly contradicts some portion of trading standards.

Even if it doesn't, a single entity controls the Blu-ray format, and I suspect you run into anti-trust problems there.

So you have a choice: buy new content and fight with it over format-shifting, only buy stuff without DRM, or run the (admittedly small) risk of pirating it.
As I said earlier, the risk behind pirating is as close to zero as I can be bothered to make it. Let me state that again: breaking this law has zero cost. The result can be effectively summarized in four words: game over, you lose. Copyright of the past is already dying, and no conceivable technology can stop that. However that won't stop the providers from very effectively screwing us over in trying to prevent that death, and that's what I object to.

Hell, I could easily see DRM and such becoming worse in a copyright-free environment, because the protections that a content provider builds in to their content would be the only protections available to them.
Nobody would bother, because that would drive away their customers.

Ignoring the question of anti-competitive behavior for the moment (which is beyond the scope of the analogy), it's entirely legit. And seems like a very good reason to not use Microsoft products, to me.
MS has a deal with every computer manufacturer to bundle their OS. You can't not use them. tongue

edited 11th May '11 1:23:22 PM by Yej

Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.
blueharp Since: Dec, 1969
#42: May 11th 2011 at 1:13:40 PM

By making transmission of works illegal, in any circumstance, you're making transmission of certain numbers illegal, and that is inherently ridiculous.

That seems a rather ridiculous argument in itself. Even leaving aside the false premise that starts it, your justification is about as sensible as saying that banning explosives makes chemistry illegal, and that's ridiculous.

Also, you can find many systems without Microsoft or Windows on it. It's not even hard today.

Yej See ALL the stars! from <0,1i> Since: Mar, 2010
See ALL the stars!
#43: May 11th 2011 at 1:15:38 PM

What do you mean, false premise? How do you think these things are represented in computers, if not by numbers?

Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.
blueharp Since: Dec, 1969
#44: May 11th 2011 at 1:17:42 PM

By making transmission of works illegal, in any circumstance,

That's a false premise.

Yej See ALL the stars! from <0,1i> Since: Mar, 2010
See ALL the stars!
#45: May 11th 2011 at 1:18:25 PM

Interpret it in the sense of, "There is some circumstance...", not "In all circumstances..."

Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.
blueharp Since: Dec, 1969
#46: May 11th 2011 at 1:21:45 PM

Perhaps you'd care to rephrase the sentence then?

Yej See ALL the stars! from <0,1i> Since: Mar, 2010
See ALL the stars!
#47: May 11th 2011 at 1:23:27 PM

Well now you've went and quoted it, it won't make any sense, will it? tongue (Done.)

Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.
blueharp Since: Dec, 1969
#48: May 11th 2011 at 1:25:34 PM

Well, at least you got rid of the false premise. You've still got a ridiculous comparison.

Aondeug Oh My from Our Dreams Since: Jun, 2009
Oh My
#49: May 11th 2011 at 1:34:49 PM

I understand the purpose of these laws and for the most part do not mind them. I am still going to pirate things like an asshole though. Mostly so I can try things out and buy them when I have the money if I like it. If I had more money I don't think I would pirate very much...I'd go out and just buy random shit to try and add to my library even if I thought it sucked.

What does bug me are authors who stamp out any fanworks with lawsuits though. By fanworks I mean those that aren't for profit of course. Now if people are making fanart and distributing it to the public for a price without your say so then there's issues here. People writing stupid gay porn of your rather fruity vampires just for fun though? Fine and dandy I think. Hell I'd give my fanbase an official go ahead if I had a published work. Or a fanbase for anything.

"GO. RAPE MY CANON. WHILE I GIGGLE SNORT ABOUT MY HATERS AND MAKE FUN OF THE CRAZY MILITANT FANS WHO SEND ME DEATH THREATS BECAUSE I DIDN'T MAKE THEIR SHIP CANON!"

I would love to write something and make it so my fanbase can create tons and tons of fanon on top of my canon that would eventually drown out the old canon. Like I'd write the first few bits and then over the years it would become something completely different because of all the changing of hands in the story telling. There'd be multiple versions of the characters and stories too because of this. Like region A would have their own take and region B a different one. Or to be one of the fans involved with the chaos. So like imagine the chaos of what happens with Greek mythology. I want that. Touhou sort of has this as do American superhero comics. Except all the many fanprojects would be and could be published and sold without gaining my permission or the permission of the creator if I was not the creator.

edited 11th May '11 1:38:43 PM by Aondeug

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah
Yej See ALL the stars! from <0,1i> Since: Mar, 2010
See ALL the stars!
#50: May 11th 2011 at 1:36:33 PM

1
2
3
4
5
6
[Lots of bandwidth later]
4 85650 78965 73978 29309 84189 46942 86137 70744 20873 51357 92401 96520 73668 69851 34010 47237 44696 87974 39926 11751 09737 77701 02744 75280 49058 83138 40375 49709 98790 96539 55227 01171 21570 25974 66699 32402 26834 59661 96060 34851 74249 77358 46851 88556 74570 25712 54749 99648 21941 84655 71008 41190 86259 71694 79707 99152 00486 67099 75923 59606 13207 25973 79799 36188 60631 69144 73588 30024 53369 72781 81391 47979 55513 39994 93948 82899 84691 78361 00182 59789 01031 60196 18350 34344 89568 70538 45208 53804 58424 15654 82488 93338 04747 58711 28339 59896 85223 25446 08408 97111 97712 76941 20795 86244 05471 61321 00500 64598 20176 96177 18094 78113 62200 27234 48272 24932 32595 47234 68800 29277 76497 90614 81298 40428 34572 01463 48968 54716 90823 54737 83566 19721 86224 96943 16227 16663 93905 54302 41564 73292 48552 48991 22573 94665 48627 14048 21171 38124 38821 77176 02984 12552 44647 44505 58346 28144 88335 63190 27253 19590 43928 38737 64073 91689 12579 24055 01562 08897 87163 37599 91078 87084 90815 90975 48019 28576 84519 88596 30532 38234 90558 09203 29996 03234 47114 07760 19847 16353 11617 13078 57608 48622 36370 28357 01049 61259 56818 46785 96533 31007 70179 91614 67447 25492 72833 48691 60006 47585 91746 27812 12690 07351 83092 41530 10630 28932 95665 84366 20008 00476 77896 79843 82090 79761 98594 93646 30938 05863 36721 46969 59750 27968 77120 57249 96666 98056 14533 82074 12031 59337 70309 94915 27469 18356 59376 21022 20068 12679 82734 45760 93802 03044 79122 77498 09179 55938 38712 10005 88766 68925 84487 00470 77255 24970 60444 65212 71304 04321 18261 01035 91186 47666 29638 58495 08744 84973 73476 86142 08805 29442.

At this point, I must stop, because one of the next 10 integers posses some property which is actually illegal to share due to intellectual property law. tongue

edited 11th May '11 1:38:34 PM by Yej

Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.

Total posts: 652
Top