Copyright and the Concept of Ownership in the Information Age

I find accusations that piracy would kill any industry to be an over-hyped paranoia. Remember when home recording didn't kill movies? What about radio not killing the music industry?

yey

My two cents: The idea of copyrights is based on the idea that if it's yours, you have absolute control over it.

I think that the reasoning is flawed. It only sees one side of right, namely "justice". It neglects other moral aspects. It neglects love and charity.

Say you have some bread, and it's yours. You are traveling and you see someone starve. Since the bread is yours, you have the right to withhold it regardless of who that person is. It doesn't automatically make it right. It's not loving to ignore the opportunities to give just because it's yours.

I do think that just giving indiscriminately to any source can be foolish, so I made this case study rather ideal. But you see the point; ownership should not decide everything. If you have, you should give and contribute, as a good Samaritan.

Now a lot of times we get upset when we see news articles strengthening copyrights and striking down free sharing of information. Much of our reaction may be exaggerated. But I do believe that just trying to fight more and more against the growth of technology to uphold the intellectual ownership concept is wrong, and this is why. People should learn the impact of this growth and learn how to adapt to it.

Now using Trivialis handle.

To be more specific, what puts a lot of the value in cultural content is the idea of culture. That is, the fact that culture is something that we use to share emotional and intellectual ideas. Without the ability to share and partake in the culture, it loses much of its value. Things such as libraries allow us to do this at low (i.e. free) amounts of personal cost.

One of the things of the absolutist stance on copyright, is that it ceases to treat cultural works as culture, and instead looks to treat them as interchangable, disposable doo-dads. Needless to say this really isn't a good thing. Because when you start to treat things like this, that's all you get, are disposable widgets.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

Copyright actually provides for "fair use" rights, you overlooked that.

And yet, what's 'fair' just seems to keep getting smaller and smaller, don't it?

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

Nope, there was a story a few weeks ago how fair use rights were successfully used by some rulings.

Doesn't seem that way at all to me. Maybe it's because of the bias towards sensationalism.

edited 19th Jul '11 11:25:22 AM by blueharp

Re: #25, yes, but to protect your asset, you don't need to stop me, or my friends. You need to stop my friends of friends of friends of friends, and then Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon kicks in and you need to stop everyone. People who care are usually savvy enough to operate a torrent client.

edited 19th Jul '11 11:26:54 AM by Yej

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

x4: I did not overlook it. I am a proponent of Fair Use and its continued protection and existence.

However virtually every time I hear news about something like this, I see the copyrights get stronger. That makes me upset. We need some strong Fair Use movement that is actually visible and heard. If technology grows to change the cultural aspect of information, people should learn how to manage the situation. However, building barriers to blockade this growth is not the way to do it.

Right now Fair Use is just a safety net that may or may not work, always on the defensive but not being a dependable counterforce against the monopolizing effect of copyrights. Some Fair Use Advocacy sites on the web would be nice, for one thing.

edited 19th Jul '11 11:29:21 AM by abstractematics

Now using Trivialis handle.

DRM is basically a way to stop the "I didn't know it was wrong" defense, and kick it into the "So you went pass all the signs, opened the locked door, and didn't realize you were breaking in??"

Fair Use doesn't help if you can't afford to fight the RIAA.

edited 19th Jul '11 11:30:57 AM by storyyeller

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play

Another thing I want to address, although it doesn't pertain just to this topic, is the one-sided power. How businesses using copyrights as power tend to be able to attack with impunity. There should be something to stop that. If they lose the case they shouldn't just walk away to take their chance with their next victim. Businesses should be made to pay for their abuse of legal system and harassing people with their threats.

edited 19th Jul '11 11:34:03 AM by abstractematics

Now using Trivialis handle.

There is something to stop that, see what's happened with Righthaven.

Also some group in the UK.

edited 19th Jul '11 11:40:27 AM by blueharp

I see. I looked it up and I learned today that Wikipedia has coined the term "copyright troll".

Would Righthaven be considered one? What happened to the group?

edited 19th Jul '11 11:47:31 AM by abstractematics

Now using Trivialis handle.

I read a couple of days ago that in one of the cases they were smacked down HARD for basically lying about stuff, and forced by the judge to acknowledge his ruling in all the cases they currently had pending.

Yes, they would be a copyright troll, although copyright trolls are not usually as common as patent trolls. (Which is another can of worms entirely)

Actually, if you want another example...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_Games

That's a good example right there.

edited 19th Jul '11 11:55:23 AM by Karmakin

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

About the legal system- it's not just copyright or patent law where the bigger wallet wins, try facing any sufficiently large entity in a lawsuit. I've got stories.

The fact that money is such a huge influence on the outcome of a legal decision is obviously a problem if you're trying to ensure that the decision is legally correct and morally fair.

edited 19th Jul '11 1:34:03 PM by deathjavu

Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.

I don't really think that equating ideas to essential parts of human survival is a good comparison. Someone will die if they're starving and I don't give them bread. Someone who's bored will be fine if I don't publish a book they might have had the chance to read while sitting there.

Isn't an idea or work the creation of an author of some kind? Of course they aren't just rocks to kick around, but it seems inherently wrong to me to say that once something has been created and published, it is a public possession, end of story. I would think society would have more respect for the people that entertain and enlighten them. After all, this site wouldn't exist without all the writers and actors and whatnot who create fiction for us to talk about.

Radio and home recording were not singularities. The Internet is quite possibly the most important advancement since the Industrial Revolution. Comparing the two is like trying to compare a house cat to a mountain lion.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Oh, of course there has to be some sort of compromise at the end of the day. Personally, I favor something between 3-5 years on all distribution, and another 3-5 years in terms of commercial distribution (meaning non-commercial distribution is fine). Maximum of 10 years before something hits full public domain status.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

^ Hmm . . . How long does a pharmaceutical company get to exclusively produce a patented drug before their competitors get to produce generics of it? (Googling "drug patents" isn't helping.)

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

Twenty years I believe.

Though of course, I don't know when the clock starts ticking, and if a government wants, they can demand production be licensed.

edited 19th Jul '11 6:53:56 PM by blueharp

I don't know about allowing things to go out of copyright while someone is alive, at least for an individual creation. If I write a book, I would be rather annoyed if, after five or ten years, I just had to sit and watch while people got to do whatever they wanted with it since it was in the public domain. I think that copyright should end some time (I couldn't pin down an exact amount of time) after the creator dies.

Of course, for a product of a company, I think it should be different. Assuming that "copyright" and "trademark" are different things, I think that the ability of other people to make the so-called "generic versions" should be within a reasonably short period of time, although not so short as to make making something pointless since you couldn't make any money off it.

I am now known as Flyboy.

The key thing here is that the latest technology eliminates the historical constraint of costly distribution, the problem being that greedy people on both sides are trying to take advantage of it for their own short-term gain. On the creator side it's seen by some (mostly the middle-men whose services were necessary to individual creators for distribution, promotion, and copy enforcement) as a means to make unbreakable consumer control, creator control (devkit licenses, etc…), and of course higher profit margins since distribution itself is cheaper. On the consumer side, it's seen by some as a means to make the collection of money not just difficult or impossible, but illegal, reducing all art to the hobbyist level, and dedicated artists to beggars at best.

Most people on both sides aren't this stupid and greedy though. Consumers just want conveniently useable intellectual products at a reasonable cost compared to expenses, and creators just want a convenient way to distribute product while getting the lion's share of profits from what is entirely their own work. Sadly, the loudest voices are the stupidest.

I agree that's where things are currently headed, but that would be… Horrible. All sorts of perverse incentives, consumer rights would be hamstrung, and extreme entry barriers for creators.

Turn that around the other way for a second. Whether or not you're aiming to make a profit, an awful lot of things have initial expenses, and unless you can get enough money to pay those expenses, that kind of endeavor simply isn't possible.

That's because both had a solid revenue stream compared to their predecessor, theatrical performances. A lot of people are treating the internet like it should be a free meal ticket, which WOULD kill the industry.

Eric,

edited 20th Jul '11 3:28:27 AM by EricDVH

What about the Honor System? Y'know, the "if you enjoyed this work, please buy a copy and help suppport it deal"? 'Cause I know there's a ton of music that I was introduced to via You Tube that I later purchased legally.

"It takes an idiot to do cool things, that's why it's cool" - Haruhara Haruko

I think the main flaw in copyright is that rewarding artists/publishers/etc. is (supposedly) based on how many people see/hear individual pieces of their work, rather than by how much they work.

This creates oddities such as One Hit Wonders still living off something they made years ago, no longer needing to work; or on the other hand some unlucky guy working their ass off, but nobody being interested.

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

How about we stop coddling the fucking artists and the publishers and tell them to suck it up and face it?

Technology makes stuff obsolete all the time. Technology made paying for content obsolete. Content is infinitely (and recursively) copyable, therefore it is not scarce, therefore it is not property.

Forcing the public to pay for non-scarce stuff is nothing short of armed robbery.

YES, the industry will die... So what? The authors themselves will keep producing stuff and scratching by, sorta. They did before copyrights, and they'll do it after them. Nobody's right to get rich doesn't trump the people's right to access whatever culture they want to without paying a dime for it.

As for the whole lotta middlemen, publishers, editors, suits and all that parasitic, worthless leeches? They will die off. They deserve to die off, and we should cheer it when their companies collapse and they get out of jobs and they starve on the streets.

The death of copyright is a good thing long overdue. But it will happen: Once darknets becone the norm, copyrights will be definitely dead. This is a war, and this can only end with the complete annihilation of publishers and IP lawyers and the editors and the whole lotta them.

edited 20th Jul '11 12:28:29 PM by SavageHeathen

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

The purpose of copyright is to protect the right of the creator to profit from the creator's work. A creator has an absolute right to create a work and then release it, without restriction, into the public domain. A creator also has the right to prevent others from profiting from his work.

The concepts of copyright and ownership exist and will continue to exist into the foreseeable future, regardless of the advance of technology. The question then becomes, "How can owners enforce their rights?" and "To what extent should they enforce their rights?"

If I own a plot of land, I can put up a ten foot high stone wall topped with razor wire around it to keep out intruders. I can also sue anybody who steps onto my land uninvited, even for just a second. Or I can be like most sane people and allow some people in and ignore minor trespassers.

It's much the same with creative properties. The creator has certain rights, and everybody else has a duty not to invade those rights. If you do, then you should be prepared to face the consequences. Copyright holders rarely take every legal step they could to stop infringement because they realize that doing so is impossible and too costly.

Now there should be limits, of course. Copyright extending to 95 years after the creator dies is just stupid. Copyrighted works or software that's been effectively abandoned should enter the public domain. But creators do and should have the right to profit from their creation. As long as we live in a capitalistic, profit-driven society, the right to profit from one's own creative work should be protected.

And in the information age, creators who are worried that their works will be pirated should think of new and innovative ways to protect their own rights. They know that there are infringers and pirates out there, so they need to assume some responsibility for preventing that.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.