Copyright laws

I don't, and neither does literally anyone else I know. (At least personally, here in Hungary, that is a lawless hellhole, in terms of copyright).

edited 17th May '11 2:15:49 PM by EternalSeptember

I'm talking about America. Where the producers think all the money is.

Well, Netflix is apparently the largest single provider of content during peak hours in the US.

Yes, since I voluntarily choose to contribute here for free, because I get enjoyment out of it. It's my free choice to contribute to a shared environment, not something I'm forced to do.

This is, I feel, a problem in the current implementation of copyright. But still, again, this is a voluntary choice: You choose to give up your rights for the more immediate and direct compensation of a paycheck. You're not going without compensation entirely.

Oh no, every work deserves property rights. Just sometimes people voluntarily give up their rights either because they don't care about compensation in that particular instance, or because they consider indirect compensation more valuable than direct compensation for their creative work.

But some people voluntarily choosing a certain business or compensation model (or giving up compensation) is different from everyone being forced into the same model or to go without compensation.

Er, yeah, no, wrong.

My real argument is, creators deserved to be compensated for their work, and copyright is currently the most realistic way for creators to be able to get sufficient compensation for their work by having control over it. There may be an alternate system possible, but any alternate system possible needs to still allow creators to have control over their work, so they can not lose potential and desired compensation to people being able to see their work for free anyway. (And thus having no reason to give them any compensation except for altruism... which is frequently a completely unreliable revenue source.)

Instead, many people's answer to fixing copyright is to simply abolish it and replace it with nothing, giving creators no rights or control whatsoever.

Again, no, wrong. I operate from the current assumption that... like I said, a person has the right to control and earn a living from their personal creative work.

I actually don't think the current implementation of copyright works, but that means overhauling the concept, not giving it up altogether and forcing all creators to have no rights or control. The rest of your post is thus just a strawman that has nothing to do with my actual point.

Especially since it's actually the exact opposite: abolishing copyright is what relies on a Humans Are Good philosophy, since charity and altruism will become the only ways most creators can get any money. Most people don't see a need to pay for stuff they can already get for free with no moral or legal consequences.

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

Copyright laws appear to be another Abortion Religion and Politics issue-people ultimately just end up talking over each other and trying to delegitimize the people who they disagree with.

You may be right.

Perhaps I should make it clear that I, at least, am not wedded to the current implementation of copyright. I feel it frequently gives too much control to faceless companies at the expense of both the people who actually created the work and the public's right to have access to it. I just feel that the opposite extreme of all creative work being instantly upon creation 100% free to distribute or derive from is equally unhelpful at best.

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

Nonsense. It's very helpful. But yes, it definitely changes the market in terms what the proper ways of getting revenue are.

1.) Market your work to people who you know are more likely to donate money because it makes them feel good.

2.) Without the threat of criminal action, or even an unenforced law, there will be a large subsection of the population who don't feel "icky" pirating, which may interfere with category 1.

3.) Product Placement will become substantially more valuable.

4.) Likewise, moving product will be essential.

Now, as an anime fan, I don't associate "made to sell product" with "bad." But I know that in America, we're used to G.I. Joe.

Which leads to the problem that creators to have to rely on begging for charity when everyone else gets the option of doing their work with an actual real business model.

Not only that, but you also lose the people who feel icky pirating but wouldn't feel icky about not paying charitable donations for something that's legally and morally free.

Which is a big problem for both people who work in creative fields where product placement isn't feasible/makes no sense (try getting away with believable product placement in a medieval fantasy or far-future setting, for instance), and for audience members who find such things distracting/distasteful.

Again, big problem for fields where that isn't feasible/doesn't make sense.

Heh. Actually, I'm a Transformers fan myself, where we actively embrace the product selling. But that doesn't mean I'm interested in the same for every fandom I'm a part of. I mean, for starters, I only have so much disposable income to go around. Ironically it's often cheaper and a better value for me to support a creator by buying the DVD sets rather than frivolous merchandise.

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

My opinion on copyright stems from my feelings on creators rights. I think creators should have some degree of ownership and control over their own work, along with the opportunity to make a living off their work. The idea behind copyright supports that, although I have issues with the current implementation. Most of my dispute towards copyright abolitionism flows from the same source as my ire towards overly greedy publishers - that they both seek to disenfranchise creators.

In order for there to be a "legitimate" price for works, there has to be a market. Absent copyright, there is no market for distribution. Ergo, the copyright laws set the market. Why these laws rather than some others?

Hey, if you can think of some way for creators to still have a viable market and method of voluntary compensation for their works on the part of the audience, without copyright, go for explaining it.

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

Well, let me put it this way. Copyright is currently limited in duration. What would you think if instead of "Life of the Creator + X Years" it was "10 minutes after it's created?"

Or 10 weeks, or whatever. "First business cycle." For instance, most PC games get the vast majority of their sales within the first year. Presumably, this might change if everyone knew it was legal to download the games after X time and, let's face it, there's a large portion of people who would still pirate illegally, but why not just reduce the time limit thing then?

My objection to the ethics of copyright is that, no one should ever have the right to impose suffering or a lack of goodness (where goodness is meant to be "Something awesome") for its own sake. If you're trying to shape their buying pattern, fine, but this notion that "Oh, you didn't pay, therefore it's better if you don't get it" is woefully shortsighted-the sort of people who, rather than suggesting "That's not a realistic depiction of your buying habits" when I say I wouldn't have bought it anyway, just say "THAT JUSTIFIES NOTHING."-that's just being a frickin' crab.

edited 17th May '11 5:27:05 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Suggestion. For creations tied to a corporation. 5 years and it's in the Public Domain. For works to a single creator, ten years after death.

I stated back several pages ago that my ideal situation would be that a person retains copyright so long as they're actively developing in their IP and/or they make it reasonably available for legal obtainment. Once they stop doing both of those things, they relinquish control of their work.

edited 17th May '11 5:30:14 PM by Jeysie

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

Copyright is a privilege. If it is going to exist at all, it should be short in duration (5-10 years, tops), and come with strings attached, such as price controls, to make sure all content is affordable for all, without even being an effort.

I also support price controls for patents. Either you don't patent an invention, or you accept price controls on it. Also, patents should be very, very short: 2-5 years tops.

Also, authors should have no capacity to sue people for pirating, and they shouldn't be able to prevent derivative works that do not qualify as plagiarism.

edited 17th May '11 5:32:39 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

If Doctor Who episodes are still being produced, the first season should be available for free!

Why? I don't know, promotional value?

Patents that short would cripple some industries, not everything is actionable in a period that short.

Maybe set thresholds instead of a static numbers.

Definitely need to do something to stop patent trolls at least.

Charity, I don't think would work as a main income source for stuff at the quality level we're used to. People are cheap as hell. Remember the Humble Indie Bundle? 5 games, which would normally go for about $80. DRM free. The average price people paid for it when asked to name their own price? Nine dollars and eighteen cents. Less than an eighth of what the games are worth. A second such event had similar results, with the original cost of the four games being around $40, with the average amount people were willing to pay at 4 dollars and 97 cents.

They lost me. Forgot me. Made you from parts of me. If you're the One, my father's son, what am I supposed to be?

Close down the East Texas court and a lot will go away.

Again, I think the model of "Technically Digital Piracy is considered wrong but the law doesn't enforce it very strongly" is the way to go. When people feel that they're being naughty by downloading content illegally, then those that DO pirate will occasionally pay real money for content to ease their conscience, and those who don't, well, they won't pirate.

Criminalization isn't the way to go, ultimately.

^^Okay, but how much did they save by cutting out the Brick and Mortar stores and distributors and commercial advertising and so on?

edited 17th May '11 5:46:35 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

The problem (or at least part of the problem) with patent trolls is that the granters are being too lax about not researching for prior use and forgetting patents are IIRC supposed to be for specific implementation of ideas, not basic concepts.

As in, we actually already have some laws designed to deter patent abuse, they're just not being enforced properly at times.

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

My opinion goes something like this:

- Society in general benefits from the creation of creative works.

- Therefore it should support creators and give them an opportunity to make creative works as a profession.

- Thus, copyright: a society-granted time-limited*

monopoly to the expression of their work (subject to fair use), allowing their work to operate on the market.

To convince me against copyright, you have to convince to me about how the alternative society will also support creative works and creation as a profession as well. Or alternatively convince me that my opnion that society benefits from creative works is wrong. Because the way I've read how the copyright-free alternative works seems along the lines of A Wizard Did It.

edited 17th May '11 5:53:53 PM by TrapperZoid

What I see happening: Where we are now, with an increase in distributors going digital and yet not finding their profits drop.

What I'd like to see happen: A centralized "Creative Works Agency," which essentially hires all the authors in the country (at reduced wages), and pays them bonuses based on distribution and reviews-the agency would be funded by tax dollars. So dollar per dollar, everyone's spending less, but writers are still being paid. Who loses out? Brick and Mortar stores and ad agencies. Oh, and small government aficionados.

Who knows? I believe all these games are available on steam, which is part of the reason why they were only, on average, 17 and 10 dollars a piece to begin with. Besides that, 30% of the first one went to charity (couldn't find statistics for the second one), so really, the creators saw even less of that.

EDIT: Re: Creative Works Agency- That sounds like a bad idea, and I honestly can't put my finger on why...

edited 17th May '11 5:58:34 PM by Wulf

They lost me. Forgot me. Made you from parts of me. If you're the One, my father's son, what am I supposed to be?