Busta Rhymes backs Megaupload, says record labels are the real criminals. Okay...

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120120/15060817494/busta-rhymes-backs-megaupload-says-record-labels-are-real-criminals.shtml

I've wanted to see this for a long time: Artists siding with the pirates against the publishers... Sweet!

Artists do all the time.

Little do they know that once they're rid of the publishers the rest of society still isn't going to throw them a bone, so they're basically happily helping dig their own graves and doing it with a smile on their face. The idiots.

Explain, please.

It's not uncommon to see artists support the anti-copyright movement because they want to rid themselves of the godawful publisher parasites, not really comprehending that they still would be back to square-one financially without copyright because they'd have no capability to properly make money off what they make.

I'm assuming that when they say the files were still there, they actually mean that literally the same files were still there, rather than copies of those files having been added.

Yet, if I understood the article right, they are making money.

Also, you just agreed publishers are "parasites". Don't this, at very last, shows there is something wrong with the current model? Even if you argue publishers are necessary, isn't it a problem if they are forcing the hand to earn more then they deserve and pay the artist less then they do?

If I had my way, we would have a BBC-style public distribution model for art and do away with the publishing-capitalist model entirely.

That'll never happen, though, so we're stuck with idiots who want to get rid of copyright and don't care about how horrible that would be for the artists. As someone who actually wants to publish things, I care very, very little for the pro-piracy side, for (hopefully understandable) various reasons.

Well, I highly doubt what he's saying to be true, but I'm putting it up to see your take on it.

PANTS TO BE DARKENED!

edited 20th Jan '12 7:47:43 PM by Psyga315

Flyboy if you read the article, than you would realize he isn't talking about destroying copyright. Megaupload was a cheap way of distributing his content and getting paid for it. His amgins actually went up, and it was cheaper or even free for the consumer. The execuetives jsut aren't making their money.

And you know what?

GOOD!

Fuck 'em. If this sort of new distribution encourages individuality and kills or at least wounds the manufactured artist, then that is awesome. The internet is taking money away from centralized corporate media producers, which have ahabit of quashing oringality and risk taking.

edited 20th Jan '12 7:42:26 PM by Erock

I'm not talking about this specific instance. I'm just talking in general, with how people view copyright.

This specific instance I have no particular opinion on.

Ah, thanks. That is why I was confused. I was still trying to figure out how what you were posting were related to the article in hand.

^^ Not really flyboy. Many artists support pirates because it makes them money. Publishers don't, they take most of the money.

The real issue is that an indie earns nearly 70-80% of the purchase price of a product they sell, while with a publisher you make less than 10% depending on the type of medium (like barely a percent for music artists). But you might say "well 1% of a much bigger number if better right?", except that's not really how it works. The amount of money people spend on entertainment is going to be roughly the same whether or not publishers exist, so if a higher percentage of that same number goes to artists then artists as a whole are richer.

The difference is that there won't be a top 10 artists making 99% of the money. It'd be more evenly spread out, with a lot more "medium popularity" choices instead of just very few "top popularity" choices. When enjoying art is about variety, style and talent, that's a definite improvement.

Supporting pirates will never make you money. a pirate is someone who steals your work, period, end of sentence.

Artists support pirates because piracy earns them money and fanbase. End of sentence. Period.

Ah, an annoying way of arguing is it not?

Without derailing this into a piracy discussion, people who spend their time in a particular media (be it video games or music) and spend their time in it via piracy, are placing themselves into a situation where if they had money to spend on such entertainment then they would do so. If these individuals could not pirate it, then they would do something else. They wouldn't pay money for it. Maybe they go play soccer. Then later when they do have money guess what they won't do? It's buy your stuff or anything related.

^^ The argument I've heard is that pirates have friends who aren't pirates, and they mention the works they pirate to their friends. Thus, the more people pirate your work, the more exposure you get. (It's a similar principle to giving an ebook away free for five days, then charging for it from the sixth day onwards.)

edited 20th Jan '12 8:54:37 PM by feotakahari

Yeah, that, the argument for piracy is free exposure, especially exposure to people who would otherwise not bother, and then that turns into money by people who want a higher quality product or support the official release because they want them to keep doing what they're doing. You can argue that that's what demos are for but a publisher still has to pay to distribute a demo while pirates distribute for free.

A blog by someone from Larian Studios has great insight for the "gaming" side of things.

http://www.lar.net/2011/12/07/why-so-many-developers-close-their-doors/ http://www.lar.net/2012/01/02/how-i-couldve-been-prevented-from-being-a-pirate/ http://www.lar.net/2012/01/12/who-do-you-pay-when-buying-a-game/

Copyrith should be done away with, even if it hurts some artists. Trying to restrict the free flow of information is impossible and counter productive in the Internet age, thus is no longer compatible with our society to hold this laws.

Bare in mind that we would still have trademarks and patents.

I think trademarks should extend to company logos only, but I've got no issue against them: Misrepresenting your goods as coming from another merchant is fraud. Merchandise is generally covered by trademarks, thus protecting artists' revenue.

As for patents, I'd drastically shorten them, to 5 years tops (2 or three years could be even better). The clock should start ticking at either commercialization or one year after filing, whichever is earlier.

When it comes to copyrights, I'd give artists 10 years since prublication of monopoly over the commercial distribution of their work, while fully legalizing noncommercial piracy. The enforcement of laws against noncommercial piracy require an mass surveillance of people's communications, which should be subject to privacy and secrecy. I'd probably implement some sort of Global License tax on Internet connections, entitling the user to freely access all entertainment he can get his hands on. The proceeds from the Global License should go to the author, not the copyright holder: Let the publishing industry go bankrupt.

edited 21st Jan '12 9:08:59 AM by SavageHeathen

Can someone summarize the difference between copyrights, trademarks, and patents?

The common thing about all of those is that they are intangible assets.

Trademark: Intellectual ownership with a name, basically. It gives you right to use and be associated with a symbol or logo.

Copyright: Right over a work. Life of creator + 70 years.

Patent: Right over an invention, to make or sell it. 20 years.

Copyright is the exclusive right to sell or distribute creative works, such as books, movies, etc. Currently, it lasts for the life of the author + 70 years, or in the case of corporate ownership, the shorter of 120 years after creation and 95 years after publication. This is the most controversial IP category by far.

Trademarks are the exclusive rights to use and market logos/insignia (Think the Mc Donald's Golden Arches or the likeness of Col. Sanders for KFC). As long as the trademark is in continuous use, trademarks never expire into the public domain. No one really argues against trademark rights.

Patents are the exclusive rights to use and sell processes, devices, and other scientific endeavors. Currently, patents last 20 years from the date of filing (and not from the date granted, so it's common for a patent to only last 17-18 years beyond when it is granted). There are some who argue that due to the structure of the law, patents are too easy to sit on and lead to rent-seeking behavior, but few are those who argue for outright rejection of patents altogether.

edited 21st Jan '12 9:30:44 AM by DarkConfidant

Mm... if I had my way, trademarks would be fine, patents would last 5 years for software and 10 years for everything else, and copyright would... be more complicated, but would as a generality last the exact length of the original creator's natural life.

edited 21st Jan '12 9:34:29 AM by Flyboy

Does corporate personhood entitle corporations their own copyrights? Because that is unacceptable.