Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Copyright Alert System] Or, how to alienate everyone. Six Strikes rollout begins Monday.

11011121315

Posts

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    You aren't born with copy rights, the way you are with rights to life, expression, or exclusive and finite properties.

    They're given. By the people. As an exchange.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    I might recommend, SKFM, looking into reading a bit about copyright. Going all the way back to the printing press. Because these arguments have already been had, by smarter men than either of us.

    And it seems limited copyrights won. If you can't understand why or how, maybe you should look into it.

    I think part of the problem is that you think computers or the Internet have changed anything. They haven't. They've merely brought audiovisual works into parity with the printed word, where cheap and "perfect" reproduction is now possible.

    But that's not new. You aren't making any argument about Nintendo games that wasn't made when the printing press was invented.

  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    And a book is not just an idea. It is just as much a unique and tangible work as a house or a statue or any other physical property made with human endeavors. The only distinction that I see is that they have the bad fortune of being easily reproducible, and I don't see why authors should suffer for that accident of history.

    Please, do explain how Melville suffers when I copy Moby Dick off Gutenberg.

    I'm super interested.

    (That's Melville, right? I'm too lazy to wiki)

    That's a bad case, because he or his estate have not consistently controlled and published the work. But look at Nintendo. Right now, they profit off of selling their back catalog. One day, that back catalog will become public domain, and, despite the fact that they have consistently sold games like Mario, they will lose the ability to do so without being in competition with other companies or even people distributing it for free. I don't think the harm is difficult to see. One day they have a revenue stream based off it, the next they don't.

    This discussion is difficult, because while I am usually able to understand the other side, I literally cannot conceive of why this should be the case, and none of the arguments presented are at all compelling or even make sense to me. You don't need to be able to copy work to make new works. And I cannot understand at all why age would give people an entitlement to your work. The fact that people are supportive of moving Mario into the public domain one day just dumbfounds me.

    Not to be rude but could it be because you aren't taking the time to understand that creativity does not exist in a vacuum, that all works are based upon that which has come before and that the central tenant is that the mass production and distribution at the least cost to the public is in the interest of all involved for the further creation of works?
    Oh, dear me, how unspeakably funny and owlishly idiotic and grotesque was that ‘plagiarism’ farce! As if there was much of anything in any human utterance, oral or written, except plagiarism! The kernel, the soul — let us go further and say the substance, the bulk, the actual and valuable material of all human utterances — is plagiarism. For substantially all ideas are second-hand, consciously and unconsciously drawn from a million outside sources, and daily use by the garnerer with a pride and satisfaction born of the superstition that he originated them; whereas there is not a rag of originality about them anywhere except the little discoloration they get from his mental and moral calibre and his temperament, and which is revealed in characteristics of phrasing. When a great orator makes a great speech you are listening to ten centuries and ten thousand men — but we call it his speech, and really some exceedingly small portion of it is his. But not enough to signify. It is merely a Waterloo. It is Wellington’s battle, in some degree, and we call it his; but there are others that contributed. It takes a thousand men to invent a telegraph, or a steam engine, or a phonograph, or a telephone or any other important thing — and the last man gets the credit and we forget the others. He added his little mite — that is all he did. These object lessons should teach us that ninety-nine parts of all things that proceed from the intellect are plagiarisms, pure and simple; and the lesson ought to make us modest. But nothing can do that.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    VanguardGennenalyse Ruebenzagdrob
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    You aren't born with copy rights, the way you are with rights to life, expression, or exclusive and finite properties.

    They're given. By the people. As an exchange.

    I don't believe that you are born with any rights. You only have the rights the state will enforce, to the extent they will enforce them. I don't need to booby trap my car because I am confident that the state will use its monopoly on the use of force to protect it, for as long as I have it. By contrast, we are left to self help (drm) when the state fails to adequately protect our rights in ip. And then eventually you lose state protection all together. I don't we why that should be the case.

    Incidentally, in the state of nature you can copy books, but you can also steal cars, and I see no distinction between the two re:deservingness of protection.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    You aren't born with copy rights, the way you are with rights to life, expression, or exclusive and finite properties.

    They're given. By the people. As an exchange.

    I dunno. You aren't born with any rights. All of them are given to you by the society you live in. In your mind some of them should be granted automatically, and some of them shouldn't, but it isn't clear how your making this decision. As an example, you aren't born with some innate ability to own land, as a society we allow people to keep land without defending it and to pass it along to their heirs. It's scene as natural that this right extends perpetually given certain conditions are met. For example if you die and have no living heirs and no will, your land passes into the ownership of the state.

    Now the idea of intellectual property comes along. Someone says I want to own an idea. Well it turns out that can be a good thing and it can be a bad thing. So we try and come up with some rules on how to handle that. The way we come up with these rules is by examining the good versus bad, and maximizing the good. Owning an idea drives innovation since it is easier for the innovator to profit. However, unlike physical property, owning an idea forever has a downside in that it can stifle further innovation. But what if it didn't? Why then should it be different than owning physical property? I would posit that perpetual ownership IS the default position of ownership, and that there must be just cause for denying it. In many cases there are (limiting further innovation), but in the particular case of making exact replicas of a previous persons art, I don't buy it. There are ways to ensure further innovation without removing the default position of perpetual ownership.

    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
    spacekungfumanFrankiedarling
  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    Filing a lawsuit is the state assisting in recovering copyrights.

    Unless you think the courts would exist in anarchy.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    I believe this because I think that depriving someone of the fruits of their labor (including the right to exclusive control) is akin to involuntary servitude.

    No one is being depriven of anything. Also you never answered my other question. We won't get anywhere if you're not willing to learn

    wbBv3fj.png
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I might recommend, SKFM, looking into reading a bit about copyright. Going all the way back to the printing press. Because these arguments have already been had, by smarter men than either of us.

    And it seems limited copyrights won. If you can't understand why or how, maybe you should look into it.

    I think part of the problem is that you think computers or the Internet have changed anything. They haven't. They've merely brought audiovisual works into parity with the printed word, where cheap and "perfect" reproduction is now possible.

    But that's not new. You aren't making any argument about Nintendo games that wasn't made when the printing press was invented.

    I would argue that the history of extension of copyright protection to longer and longer periods suggests a shift in my favor.

    And the internet is a game changer because of free distribution of digital goods. The scope of works which can be copied has increased, as has the availability, but most damaging of all, the end of the need for a physical reproduction has led to free distribution for the hell of it, on a massive scale.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I might recommend, SKFM, looking into reading a bit about copyright. Going all the way back to the printing press. Because these arguments have already been had, by smarter men than either of us.

    And it seems limited copyrights won. If you can't understand why or how, maybe you should look into it.

    I think part of the problem is that you think computers or the Internet have changed anything. They haven't. They've merely brought audiovisual works into parity with the printed word, where cheap and "perfect" reproduction is now possible.

    But that's not new. You aren't making any argument about Nintendo games that wasn't made when the printing press was invented.

    You see McDermott

    You see what happens when you allow the serfs movable printed type?

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    This argument makes no sense to me. The natural state of a lot of things is horrible. We've already agreed that there is a justification for copyrighting. It serves to protect innovators from having their work taken and used without being reimbursed. Thus it serves to drive innovation by offering a protective service to innovators. Now we need to decide how long it should last. You think it should be X years, I think it should be forever. We both need to justify our positions. I say that a copyright should last until you can prove that it is suppressing further innovation. In cases like new technology, that means that it should exists but only for a limited time. It drives innovation by existing, and drives further innovation by allowing others to use that new technology when it expires. Art doesn't function the same way. The copyright will drive innovation by protecting innovators, but I don't see how it will suppress further innovation. I can still create new works based on ideas I got from your work. I just can't copy your work.

    The natural state of a lot of things is horrible.

    For a lot of others, less so.

    Being able to freely copy artistic works? Like CptHamilton said, seems like that's not bad in and of itself. Nobody loses anything, people enjoy cultural works. Good stuff.

    The only problem is ensuring artists can afford to make works. That's accomplished by limited copyrights. Perpetual is unnecessary. Generally we go for less restrictive laws, not more, when possible. So why are you advocating for more law than necessary?

    And that still doesn't change the fact that when you're looking to enact restrictions on people, which copy rights are, it's on you to justify them. For theft and murder, it's easy...you're depriving others of THEIR rights.

    Copy rights? No. You have no intrinsic right to prevent others from making copies. If you don't want copies made, don't publish. Now, as mentioned repeatedly, there is strong justification for limited copyrights. That's nothing new.

    But the justification WAS needed.

    And for perpetual? That burdens still on you, buddy. Both in general and because its a new proposal. And your arguments are shit.

    You lose control, both creatively and financially. If I was an artist, I would be livid over the fact that in 100 years someone could read my book for free or use my characters in their own work without my estate's permission.

    You also lose control by being dead.

    ArthilmcdermottSo It GoesGennenalyse RuebenLord_Asmodeus
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    And a book is not just an idea. It is just as much a unique and tangible work as a house or a statue or any other physical property made with human endeavors. The only distinction that I see is that they have the bad fortune of being easily reproducible, and I don't see why authors should suffer for that accident of history.

    Please, do explain how Melville suffers when I copy Moby Dick off Gutenberg.

    I'm super interested.

    (That's Melville, right? I'm too lazy to wiki)

    That's a bad case, because he or his estate have not consistently controlled and published the work. But look at Nintendo. Right now, they profit off of selling their back catalog. One day, that back catalog will become public domain, and, despite the fact that they have consistently sold games like Mario, they will lose the ability to do so without being in competition with other companies or even people distributing it for free. I don't think the harm is difficult to see. One day they have a revenue stream based off it, the next they don't.

    This discussion is difficult, because while I am usually able to understand the other side, I literally cannot conceive of why this should be the case, and none of the arguments presented are at all compelling or even make sense to me. You don't need to be able to copy work to make new works. And I cannot understand at all why age would give people an entitlement to your work. The fact that people are supportive of moving Mario into the public domain one day just dumbfounds me.

    Not to be rude but could it be because you aren't taking the time to understand that creativity does not exist in a vacuum, that all works are based upon that which has come before and that the central tenant is that the mass production and distribution at the least cost to the public is in the interest of all involved for the further creation of works?
    Oh, dear me, how unspeakably funny and owlishly idiotic and grotesque was that ‘plagiarism’ farce! As if there was much of anything in any human utterance, oral or written, except plagiarism! The kernel, the soul — let us go further and say the substance, the bulk, the actual and valuable material of all human utterances — is plagiarism. For substantially all ideas are second-hand, consciously and unconsciously drawn from a million outside sources, and daily use by the garnerer with a pride and satisfaction born of the superstition that he originated them; whereas there is not a rag of originality about them anywhere except the little discoloration they get from his mental and moral calibre and his temperament, and which is revealed in characteristics of phrasing. When a great orator makes a great speech you are listening to ten centuries and ten thousand men — but we call it his speech, and really some exceedingly small portion of it is his. But not enough to signify. It is merely a Waterloo. It is Wellington’s battle, in some degree, and we call it his; but there are others that contributed. It takes a thousand men to invent a telegraph, or a steam engine, or a phonograph, or a telephone or any other important thing — and the last man gets the credit and we forget the others. He added his little mite — that is all he did. These object lessons should teach us that ninety-nine parts of all things that proceed from the intellect are plagiarisms, pure and simple; and the lesson ought to make us modest. But nothing can do that.

    I am not advocating a prohibition on works inspired by others. Just direct copies or the use of characters.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • chrisnlchrisnl Registered User regular
    I don't understand this desire to have people's descendants profit off of work done by the previous generation(s). Sure, Sir Paul McCartney has created a lot of things and added much to the sum total of our society through his artistry. What have his children done to give them a right to profit off of his hard work and talent? (I don't know if his children do, in fact, have any claim to the distribution rights of any of his work)

    As to comparing patents to copyright, I think they should be handled very similarly. Both are dealing with ideas, and pretty much every idea ever has been influenced by what came before it. Saying that technological advancement is more important to society than culture is very strange to me. Culture is the entire foundation of our lives, and is quite possibly more important than technology in some ways, while less important in others. A stagnant culture with ever-evolving technology sounds like a terrible place to live.

    Also, winning Civ V by culture is just as valid as winning by science!

    steam_sig.png
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    And a book is not just an idea. It is just as much a unique and tangible work as a house or a statue or any other physical property made with human endeavors. The only distinction that I see is that they have the bad fortune of being easily reproducible, and I don't see why authors should suffer for that accident of history.

    Please, do explain how Melville suffers when I copy Moby Dick off Gutenberg.

    I'm super interested.

    (That's Melville, right? I'm too lazy to wiki)

    That's a bad case, because he or his estate have not consistently controlled and published the work. But look at Nintendo. Right now, they profit off of selling their back catalog. One day, that back catalog will become public domain, and, despite the fact that they have consistently sold games like Mario, they will lose the ability to do so without being in competition with other companies or even people distributing it for free. I don't think the harm is difficult to see. One day they have a revenue stream based off it, the next they don't.

    This discussion is difficult, because while I am usually able to understand the other side, I literally cannot conceive of why this should be the case, and none of the arguments presented are at all compelling or even make sense to me. You don't need to be able to copy work to make new works. And I cannot understand at all why age would give people an entitlement to your work. The fact that people are supportive of moving Mario into the public domain one day just dumbfounds me.

    Not to be rude but could it be because you aren't taking the time to understand that creativity does not exist in a vacuum, that all works are based upon that which has come before and that the central tenant is that the mass production and distribution at the least cost to the public is in the interest of all involved for the further creation of works?
    Oh, dear me, how unspeakably funny and owlishly idiotic and grotesque was that ‘plagiarism’ farce! As if there was much of anything in any human utterance, oral or written, except plagiarism! The kernel, the soul — let us go further and say the substance, the bulk, the actual and valuable material of all human utterances — is plagiarism. For substantially all ideas are second-hand, consciously and unconsciously drawn from a million outside sources, and daily use by the garnerer with a pride and satisfaction born of the superstition that he originated them; whereas there is not a rag of originality about them anywhere except the little discoloration they get from his mental and moral calibre and his temperament, and which is revealed in characteristics of phrasing. When a great orator makes a great speech you are listening to ten centuries and ten thousand men — but we call it his speech, and really some exceedingly small portion of it is his. But not enough to signify. It is merely a Waterloo. It is Wellington’s battle, in some degree, and we call it his; but there are others that contributed. It takes a thousand men to invent a telegraph, or a steam engine, or a phonograph, or a telephone or any other important thing — and the last man gets the credit and we forget the others. He added his little mite — that is all he did. These object lessons should teach us that ninety-nine parts of all things that proceed from the intellect are plagiarisms, pure and simple; and the lesson ought to make us modest. But nothing can do that.

    I am not advocating a prohibition on works inspired by others. Just direct copies or the use of characters.

    You're missing the point however of
    Me wrote:
    all works are based upon that which has come before and that the central tenant is that the mass production and distribution at the least cost to the public is in the interest of all involved for the further creation of works

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    I believe this because I think that depriving someone of the fruits of their labor (including the right to exclusive control) is akin to involuntary servitude.

    No one is being depriven of anything. Also you never answered my other question. We won't get anywhere if you're not willing to learn

    I did, by saying I was not making an economic argument. My position is based on fairness and justice. And the deprivation is of the rightholder's time. I could have lounged around but I wrote a book instead. In exchange, I demand compensation for my choice to produce. You read my book without compensation, and have the benefit of my time and your time. That is manifestly unfair IMO.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I might recommend, SKFM, looking into reading a bit about copyright. Going all the way back to the printing press. Because these arguments have already been had, by smarter men than either of us.

    And it seems limited copyrights won. If you can't understand why or how, maybe you should look into it.

    I think part of the problem is that you think computers or the Internet have changed anything. They haven't. They've merely brought audiovisual works into parity with the printed word, where cheap and "perfect" reproduction is now possible.

    But that's not new. You aren't making any argument about Nintendo games that wasn't made when the printing press was invented.

    I would argue that the history of extension of copyright protection to longer and longer periods suggests a shift in my favor.

    And the internet is a game changer because of free distribution of digital goods. The scope of works which can be copied has increased, as has the availability, but most damaging of all, the end of the need for a physical reproduction has led to free distribution for the hell of it, on a massive scale.

    If you looked at the actual history, you'd see these extensions have been funded by corporate rights holders like Disney, who are using lobbyists to basically further their own interests in making a profit. This "shift" is in direct contradiction to the idea behind the copyright clause, and supreme court justices (in dissent) have said so.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I might recommend, SKFM, looking into reading a bit about copyright. Going all the way back to the printing press. Because these arguments have already been had, by smarter men than either of us.

    And it seems limited copyrights won. If you can't understand why or how, maybe you should look into it.

    I think part of the problem is that you think computers or the Internet have changed anything. They haven't. They've merely brought audiovisual works into parity with the printed word, where cheap and "perfect" reproduction is now possible.

    But that's not new. You aren't making any argument about Nintendo games that wasn't made when the printing press was invented.

    I would argue that the history of extension of copyright protection to longer and longer periods suggests a shift in my favor.

    And the internet is a game changer because of free distribution of digital goods. The scope of works which can be copied has increased, as has the availability, but most damaging of all, the end of the need for a physical reproduction has led to free distribution for the hell of it, on a massive scale.

    If you looked at the actual history, you'd see these extensions have been funded by corporate rights holders like Disney, who are using lobbyists to basically further their own interests in making a profit. This "shift" is in direct contradiction to the idea behind the copyright clause, and supreme court justices (in dissent) have said so.

    Am I not on the side of the private rights holder here?

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    And a book is not just an idea. It is just as much a unique and tangible work as a house or a statue or any other physical property made with human endeavors. The only distinction that I see is that they have the bad fortune of being easily reproducible, and I don't see why authors should suffer for that accident of history.

    Please, do explain how Melville suffers when I copy Moby Dick off Gutenberg.

    I'm super interested.

    (That's Melville, right? I'm too lazy to wiki)

    That's a bad case, because he or his estate have not consistently controlled and published the work. But look at Nintendo. Right now, they profit off of selling their back catalog. One day, that back catalog will become public domain, and, despite the fact that they have consistently sold games like Mario, they will lose the ability to do so without being in competition with other companies or even people distributing it for free. I don't think the harm is difficult to see. One day they have a revenue stream based off it, the next they don't.

    This discussion is difficult, because while I am usually able to understand the other side, I literally cannot conceive of why this should be the case, and none of the arguments presented are at all compelling or even make sense to me. You don't need to be able to copy work to make new works. And I cannot understand at all why age would give people an entitlement to your work. The fact that people are supportive of moving Mario into the public domain one day just dumbfounds me.

    Not to be rude but could it be because you aren't taking the time to understand that creativity does not exist in a vacuum, that all works are based upon that which has come before and that the central tenant is that the mass production and distribution at the least cost to the public is in the interest of all involved for the further creation of works?
    Oh, dear me, how unspeakably funny and owlishly idiotic and grotesque was that ‘plagiarism’ farce! As if there was much of anything in any human utterance, oral or written, except plagiarism! The kernel, the soul — let us go further and say the substance, the bulk, the actual and valuable material of all human utterances — is plagiarism. For substantially all ideas are second-hand, consciously and unconsciously drawn from a million outside sources, and daily use by the garnerer with a pride and satisfaction born of the superstition that he originated them; whereas there is not a rag of originality about them anywhere except the little discoloration they get from his mental and moral calibre and his temperament, and which is revealed in characteristics of phrasing. When a great orator makes a great speech you are listening to ten centuries and ten thousand men — but we call it his speech, and really some exceedingly small portion of it is his. But not enough to signify. It is merely a Waterloo. It is Wellington’s battle, in some degree, and we call it his; but there are others that contributed. It takes a thousand men to invent a telegraph, or a steam engine, or a phonograph, or a telephone or any other important thing — and the last man gets the credit and we forget the others. He added his little mite — that is all he did. These object lessons should teach us that ninety-nine parts of all things that proceed from the intellect are plagiarisms, pure and simple; and the lesson ought to make us modest. But nothing can do that.

    I am not advocating a prohibition on works inspired by others. Just direct copies or the use of characters.

    You're missing the point however of
    Me wrote:
    all works are based upon that which has come before and that the central tenant is that the mass production and distribution at the least cost to the public is in the interest of all involved for the further creation of works

    If that were the only criteria for setting copyright laws, then there would be no copyright laws. We've already established that we don't want mass production and distribution at the least cost to the public. We want increased costs. I'm not seeing why it's valid now but not 50 years from now.

    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    chrisnl wrote: »
    I don't understand this desire to have people's descendants profit off of work done by the previous generation(s). Sure, Sir Paul McCartney has created a lot of things and added much to the sum total of our society through his artistry. What have his children done to give them a right to profit off of his hard work and talent? (I don't know if his children do, in fact, have any claim to the distribution rights of any of his work)

    As to comparing patents to copyright, I think they should be handled very similarly. Both are dealing with ideas, and pretty much every idea ever has been influenced by what came before it. Saying that technological advancement is more important to society than culture is very strange to me. Culture is the entire foundation of our lives, and is quite possibly more important than technology in some ways, while less important in others. A stagnant culture with ever-evolving technology sounds like a terrible place to live.

    Also, winning Civ V by culture is just as valid as winning by science!

    This is hyperbolic. People consume copyrighted works all the time. They just have to pay for the privilege. Almost nothing moves into the public domain anymore, and we're producing a ton of art anyway.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I might recommend, SKFM, looking into reading a bit about copyright. Going all the way back to the printing press. Because these arguments have already been had, by smarter men than either of us.

    And it seems limited copyrights won. If you can't understand why or how, maybe you should look into it.

    I think part of the problem is that you think computers or the Internet have changed anything. They haven't. They've merely brought audiovisual works into parity with the printed word, where cheap and "perfect" reproduction is now possible.

    But that's not new. You aren't making any argument about Nintendo games that wasn't made when the printing press was invented.

    I would argue that the history of extension of copyright protection to longer and longer periods suggests a shift in my favor.

    And the internet is a game changer because of free distribution of digital goods. The scope of works which can be copied has increased, as has the availability, but most damaging of all, the end of the need for a physical reproduction has led to free distribution for the hell of it, on a massive scale.

    If you looked at the actual history, you'd see these extensions have been funded by corporate rights holders like Disney, who are using lobbyists to basically further their own interests in making a profit. This "shift" is in direct contradiction to the idea behind the copyright clause, and supreme court justices (in dissent) have said so.

    Am I not on the side of the private rights holder here?

    Very, very obviously. To the detriment of society, even!

    I don't think citing this trend is an actual support of your position! It's a trend that's been shoved down congress's throat by money. It's not the public (or even most content creators!!) asking for longer copyrights.

    Gennenalyse RuebenRhan9Lord_Asmodeus
  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    I believe this because I think that depriving someone of the fruits of their labor (including the right to exclusive control) is akin to involuntary servitude.

    No one is being depriven of anything. Also you never answered my other question. We won't get anywhere if you're not willing to learn

    I did, by saying I was not making an economic argument. My position is based on fairness and justice. And the deprivation is of the rightholder's time. I could have lounged around but I wrote a book instead. In exchange, I demand compensation for my choice to produce. You read my book without compensation, and have the benefit of my time and your time. That is manifestly unfair IMO.

    Your belief of perpetual ownership is neither fair nor just. It is entirely at the benefit of the wealthy. It ensures that those who can afford to acquire the rights to work can continue to accumulate said rights.

    You really seem to think the ideal world is one where a tiny portion of the population controls 100% of the wealth and the vast majority of the people live as an underclass.

    That is about as far from fair and just as it gets.

    QuidGennenalyse RuebenRhan9Lord_Asmodeus
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    mcdermott wrote: »
    You aren't born with copy rights, the way you are with rights to life, expression, or exclusive and finite properties.

    They're given. By the people. As an exchange.

    I don't believe that you are born with any rights. You only have the rights the state will enforce, to the extent they will enforce them. I don't need to booby trap my car because I am confident that the state will use its monopoly on the use of force to protect it, for as long as I have it. By contrast, we are left to self help (drm) when the state fails to adequately protect our rights in ip. And then eventually you lose state protection all together. I don't we why that should be the case.

    Incidentally, in the state of nature you can copy books, but you can also steal cars, and I see no distinction between the two re:deservingness of protection.

    The fact that if I steal your car, you no longer have that car, is not a significant distinction to you? If I squat in your home, you can no longer occupy that space. If I take your car, you can no longer drive it. If I break your arm, you can no longer use it. But if I copy your book...there's another copy of your book.

    That's why I keep harping on the fact that this "property" is not exclusive.

    In a state of nature, you at least have a natural right and incentive to protect your physical possessions by force. I come to steal your car, you can defend it physically. You publish your book, and you give up that ability. You have no feasible manner in which to hunt down every copy and ensure no more are made. Because you gave up control of it.

    I did, by saying I was not making an economic argument. My position is based on fairness and justice. And the deprivation is of the rightholder's time. I could have lounged around but I wrote a book instead. In exchange, I demand compensation for my choice to produce. You read my book without compensation, and have the benefit of my time and your time. That is manifestly unfair IMO.

    You have decades (EDIT: or even your entire lifetime) to be compensated for your time. You were compensated for your choice to produce. You are demanding that others are compensated for your choice to produce, in perpetuity. For a product that does not degrade. If you build a house, continuing work has to go into maintaining that house. Same for a railroad empire. But a book? All that has to happen is people making copies...you need do nothing to maintain it. The audience will, theoretically, do all that work for you.

    So once you've been compensated throughout your lifetime (or whatever period) you are no longer producing. You produced. Once.

    You are suggesting that somebody (in 500 years it won't be you) be compensated, in perpetuity, for a single act of work. Only with intellectual property is that even possible. You don't see a distinction?

    If not, you are being purposefully obtuse, or your brain is straight-up broken. Either way, you are once again the silliest of geese.

    mcdermott on
    QuidJulius
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I might recommend, SKFM, looking into reading a bit about copyright. Going all the way back to the printing press. Because these arguments have already been had, by smarter men than either of us.

    And it seems limited copyrights won. If you can't understand why or how, maybe you should look into it.

    I think part of the problem is that you think computers or the Internet have changed anything. They haven't. They've merely brought audiovisual works into parity with the printed word, where cheap and "perfect" reproduction is now possible.

    But that's not new. You aren't making any argument about Nintendo games that wasn't made when the printing press was invented.

    I would argue that the history of extension of copyright protection to longer and longer periods suggests a shift in my favor.

    And the internet is a game changer because of free distribution of digital goods. The scope of works which can be copied has increased, as has the availability, but most damaging of all, the end of the need for a physical reproduction has led to free distribution for the hell of it, on a massive scale.

    If you looked at the actual history, you'd see these extensions have been funded by corporate rights holders like Disney, who are using lobbyists to basically further their own interests in making a profit. This "shift" is in direct contradiction to the idea behind the copyright clause, and supreme court justices (in dissent) have said so.

    Am I not on the side of the private rights holder here?

    Very, very obviously. To the detriment of society, even!

    I don't think citing this trend is an actual support of your position! It's a trend that's been shoved down congress's throat by money. It's not the public (or even most content creators!!) asking for longer copyrights.

    It's kind of a weird argument anyway. Look this is what we decided on for a law in the past so clearly it must be the best way to approach this problem! I mean I understand that this may not be a new discussion, but that doesn't mean that the fairest/best/most justified position has won in the past. mcdermott pointed out previous laws on copyright for when the printing press was invented as if that validated his position. SKFM pointed out that the laws have been shifting more his direction. Neither is a very good argument for anything really, as there are too many other factors involved with what does or does not become a law.

    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I might recommend, SKFM, looking into reading a bit about copyright. Going all the way back to the printing press. Because these arguments have already been had, by smarter men than either of us.

    And it seems limited copyrights won. If you can't understand why or how, maybe you should look into it.

    I think part of the problem is that you think computers or the Internet have changed anything. They haven't. They've merely brought audiovisual works into parity with the printed word, where cheap and "perfect" reproduction is now possible.

    But that's not new. You aren't making any argument about Nintendo games that wasn't made when the printing press was invented.

    I would argue that the history of extension of copyright protection to longer and longer periods suggests a shift in my favor.

    And the internet is a game changer because of free distribution of digital goods. The scope of works which can be copied has increased, as has the availability, but most damaging of all, the end of the need for a physical reproduction has led to free distribution for the hell of it, on a massive scale.

    If you looked at the actual history, you'd see these extensions have been funded by corporate rights holders like Disney, who are using lobbyists to basically further their own interests in making a profit. This "shift" is in direct contradiction to the idea behind the copyright clause, and supreme court justices (in dissent) have said so.

    Am I not on the side of the private rights holder here?

    Very, very obviously. To the detriment of society, even!

    I don't think citing this trend is an actual support of your position! It's a trend that's been shoved down congress's throat by money. It's not the public (or even most content creators!!) asking for longer copyrights.

    It's kind of a weird argument anyway. Look this is what we decided on for a law in the past so clearly it must be the best way to approach this problem! I mean I understand that this may not be a new discussion, but that doesn't mean that the fairest/best/most justified position has won in the past. mcdermott pointed out previous laws on copyright for when the printing press was invented as if that validated his position. SKFM pointed out that the laws have been shifting more his direction. Neither is a very good argument for anything really, as there are too many other factors involved with what does or does not become a law.

    If our laws are controlled by the Constitution, and copyright clause is the basis for our IP laws, it is important what that clause means, and what its purpose is. It's why we even have these laws in the first place.

    It's meaning shouldn't change because Disney's copyright on Steamboat Willie is about to expire. Except for it does in reality, because $$$$. So if SKFM wants to cite that as support for his position that copyright should be about profit and not about benefiting society, then I guess it works. We should let corporate interests dictate our copyright law.

  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    You aren't born with copy rights, the way you are with rights to life, expression, or exclusive and finite properties.

    They're given. By the people. As an exchange.

    I don't believe that you are born with any rights. You only have the rights the state will enforce, to the extent they will enforce them. I don't need to booby trap my car because I am confident that the state will use its monopoly on the use of force to protect it, for as long as I have it. By contrast, we are left to self help (drm) when the state fails to adequately protect our rights in ip. And then eventually you lose state protection all together. I don't we why that should be the case.

    Incidentally, in the state of nature you can copy books, but you can also steal cars, and I see no distinction between the two re:deservingness of protection.

    The fact that if I steal your car, you no longer have that car, is not a significant distinction to you? If I squat in your home, you can no longer occupy that space. If I take your car, you can no longer drive it. If I break your arm, you can no longer use it. But if I copy your book...there's another copy of your book.

    That's why I keep harping on the fact that this "property" is not exclusive.

    In a state of nature, you at least have a natural right and incentive to protect your physical possessions by force. I come to steal your car, you can defend it physically. You publish your book, and you give up that ability. You have no feasible manner in which to hunt down every copy and ensure no more are made. Because you gave up control of it.

    I did, by saying I was not making an economic argument. My position is based on fairness and justice. And the deprivation is of the rightholder's time. I could have lounged around but I wrote a book instead. In exchange, I demand compensation for my choice to produce. You read my book without compensation, and have the benefit of my time and your time. That is manifestly unfair IMO.

    You have decades to be compensated for your time. You were compensated for your choice to produce. You are demanding that others are compensated for your choice to produce, in perpetuity. For a product that does not degrade. If you build a house, continuing work has to go into maintaining that house. Same for a railroad empire. But a book? All that has to happen is people making copies...you need do nothing to maintain it. The audience will, theoretically, do all that work for you.

    So once you've been compensated throughout your lifetime (or whatever period) you are no longer producing. You produced. Once.

    You are suggesting that somebody (in 500 years it won't be you) be compensated, in perpetuity, for a single act of work. Only with intellectual property is that even possible. You don't see a distinction?

    If not, you are being purposefully obtuse, or your brain is straight-up broken. Either way, you are once again the silliest of geese.

    What about a piece of land? That land will be there seemingly forever. It costs the owner of that land nothing to rent the land (not a house/building/whatever, but the land) out for use. This is something that is done. And everyone agrees that the ability to rent this land out forever, without putting in any maintenance yourself, is something that should be perpetual.

    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    I believe this because I think that depriving someone of the fruits of their labor (including the right to exclusive control) is akin to involuntary servitude.

    No one is being depriven of anything. Also you never answered my other question. We won't get anywhere if you're not willing to learn

    I did, by saying I was not making an economic argument. My position is based on fairness and justice. And the deprivation is of the rightholder's time. I could have lounged around but I wrote a book instead. In exchange, I demand compensation for my choice to produce. You read my book without compensation, and have the benefit of my time and your time. That is manifestly unfair IMO.

    If you didn't want anyone to read your book, you shouldn't have published it. So why did you write the book, if not for its own sake? To make money from it? Okay, well that's only an option because we give up the right to copy your book, for a limited time. In exchange for this, you agree to let it enter public domain.

    And now you want more? You want to always own what we gave you for a limited time? Don't go back on our deal. You knew the deal when you wrote the book.

    I need to be compensated, too. Most of us aren't ever going to make money of a copyright so why are we allowing some to? Why should I pay for something I could get for free without depriving anyone else of it? How is that fair? I don't pay for air, or gravity. I don't pay a royalty on the use of the English language. But arrage the 0s and 1s in my hard drive in a certain order and now I owe someone? I laugh.

    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I might recommend, SKFM, looking into reading a bit about copyright. Going all the way back to the printing press. Because these arguments have already been had, by smarter men than either of us.

    And it seems limited copyrights won. If you can't understand why or how, maybe you should look into it.

    I think part of the problem is that you think computers or the Internet have changed anything. They haven't. They've merely brought audiovisual works into parity with the printed word, where cheap and "perfect" reproduction is now possible.

    But that's not new. You aren't making any argument about Nintendo games that wasn't made when the printing press was invented.

    I would argue that the history of extension of copyright protection to longer and longer periods suggests a shift in my favor.

    And the internet is a game changer because of free distribution of digital goods. The scope of works which can be copied has increased, as has the availability, but most damaging of all, the end of the need for a physical reproduction has led to free distribution for the hell of it, on a massive scale.

    If you looked at the actual history, you'd see these extensions have been funded by corporate rights holders like Disney, who are using lobbyists to basically further their own interests in making a profit. This "shift" is in direct contradiction to the idea behind the copyright clause, and supreme court justices (in dissent) have said so.

    Am I not on the side of the private rights holder here?

    Very, very obviously. To the detriment of society, even!

    I don't think citing this trend is an actual support of your position! It's a trend that's been shoved down congress's throat by money. It's not the public (or even most content creators!!) asking for longer copyrights.

    It's kind of a weird argument anyway. Look this is what we decided on for a law in the past so clearly it must be the best way to approach this problem! I mean I understand that this may not be a new discussion, but that doesn't mean that the fairest/best/most justified position has won in the past. mcdermott pointed out previous laws on copyright for when the printing press was invented as if that validated his position. SKFM pointed out that the laws have been shifting more his direction. Neither is a very good argument for anything really, as there are too many other factors involved with what does or does not become a law.

    If our laws are controlled by the Constitution, and copyright clause is the basis for our IP laws, it is important what that clause means, and what its purpose is. It's why we even have these laws in the first place.

    It's meaning shouldn't change because Disney's copyright on Steamboat Willie is about to expire. Except for it does in reality, because $$$$. So if SKFM wants to cite that as support for his position that copyright should be about profit and not about benefiting society, then I guess it works. We should let corporate interests dictate our copyright law.

    The constitution is not the all deciding law. It can and has been changed. Using previous laws as an argument for what is the best solution is problematic, because there are so many other considerations. I'm not saying anything at all about whether or not Disney should be able to manipulate legislation with money. I'm saying that previous laws are not always indicative of the best solution.

    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    You aren't born with copy rights, the way you are with rights to life, expression, or exclusive and finite properties.

    They're given. By the people. As an exchange.

    I don't believe that you are born with any rights. You only have the rights the state will enforce, to the extent they will enforce them. I don't need to booby trap my car because I am confident that the state will use its monopoly on the use of force to protect it, for as long as I have it. By contrast, we are left to self help (drm) when the state fails to adequately protect our rights in ip. And then eventually you lose state protection all together. I don't we why that should be the case.

    Incidentally, in the state of nature you can copy books, but you can also steal cars, and I see no distinction between the two re:deservingness of protection.

    The fact that if I steal your car, you no longer have that car, is not a significant distinction to you? If I squat in your home, you can no longer occupy that space. If I take your car, you can no longer drive it. If I break your arm, you can no longer use it. But if I copy your book...there's another copy of your book.

    That's why I keep harping on the fact that this "property" is not exclusive.

    In a state of nature, you at least have a natural right and incentive to protect your physical possessions by force. I come to steal your car, you can defend it physically. You publish your book, and you give up that ability. You have no feasible manner in which to hunt down every copy and ensure no more are made. Because you gave up control of it.

    I did, by saying I was not making an economic argument. My position is based on fairness and justice. And the deprivation is of the rightholder's time. I could have lounged around but I wrote a book instead. In exchange, I demand compensation for my choice to produce. You read my book without compensation, and have the benefit of my time and your time. That is manifestly unfair IMO.

    You have decades to be compensated for your time. You were compensated for your choice to produce. You are demanding that others are compensated for your choice to produce, in perpetuity. For a product that does not degrade. If you build a house, continuing work has to go into maintaining that house. Same for a railroad empire. But a book? All that has to happen is people making copies...you need do nothing to maintain it. The audience will, theoretically, do all that work for you.

    So once you've been compensated throughout your lifetime (or whatever period) you are no longer producing. You produced. Once.

    You are suggesting that somebody (in 500 years it won't be you) be compensated, in perpetuity, for a single act of work. Only with intellectual property is that even possible. You don't see a distinction?

    If not, you are being purposefully obtuse, or your brain is straight-up broken. Either way, you are once again the silliest of geese.

    What about a piece of land? That land will be there seemingly forever. It costs the owner of that land nothing to rent the land (not a house/building/whatever, but the land) out for use. This is something that is done. And everyone agrees that the ability to rent this land out forever, without putting in any maintenance yourself, is something that should be perpetual.

    Land is not Intellectual Property.

    If you rent out land to someone, your ability to use it has decreased, because you've ceded that right to the renter, with certain controls, for compensation for your loss.

    If I publish a book about Vampires going to war with an unholy moon god who happens to look like Colonel Sanders with the body of a Fist of the North Star brawler, no matter how many people have a copy, I lose nothing. I still have that idea, I can still distribute it, I can still do more things with that idea.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    What about a piece of land? That land will be there seemingly forever. It costs the owner of that land nothing to rent the land (not a house/building/whatever, but the land) out for use. This is something that is done. And everyone agrees that the ability to rent this land out forever, without putting in any maintenance yourself, is something that should be perpetual.

    The use of land is exclusive. In order to rent it to you, I no longer get to use it (or at least my use of it is now limited). Land is also finite. There is a fixed supply on earth.

    The same is not true of a copy of Snow White.

    QuidSo It GoesElldrenzagdrob
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    What about a piece of land? That land will be there seemingly forever. It costs the owner of that land nothing to rent the land (not a house/building/whatever, but the land) out for use. This is something that is done. And everyone agrees that the ability to rent this land out forever, without putting in any maintenance yourself, is something that should be perpetual.

    If you are renting out a piece of land then you are both paying taxes on that land simply by owning it and conducting additional required maintenance as required by the state.

    Never mind that no one can create an identical copy of that piece of land for free to use for themselves.

    Quid on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    Quid wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    What about a piece of land? That land will be there seemingly forever. It costs the owner of that land nothing to rent the land (not a house/building/whatever, but the land) out for use. This is something that is done. And everyone agrees that the ability to rent this land out forever, without putting in any maintenance yourself, is something that should be perpetual.

    If you are renting out a piece of land then you are both paying taxes on that land simply by owning it and conducting additional required maintenance as required by the state.

    Never mind that no one can create an identical copy of that piece of land for free to use for themselves.

    Yeah, property taxes (based on value) in most jurisdictions are levied in perpetuity.

    Also, eminent domain.

    mcdermott on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Also I guarunfuckingtee you if useful land could be recreated practically for free it'd probably be a right in the constitution.

  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I might recommend, SKFM, looking into reading a bit about copyright. Going all the way back to the printing press. Because these arguments have already been had, by smarter men than either of us.

    And it seems limited copyrights won. If you can't understand why or how, maybe you should look into it.

    I think part of the problem is that you think computers or the Internet have changed anything. They haven't. They've merely brought audiovisual works into parity with the printed word, where cheap and "perfect" reproduction is now possible.

    But that's not new. You aren't making any argument about Nintendo games that wasn't made when the printing press was invented.

    I would argue that the history of extension of copyright protection to longer and longer periods suggests a shift in my favor.

    And the internet is a game changer because of free distribution of digital goods. The scope of works which can be copied has increased, as has the availability, but most damaging of all, the end of the need for a physical reproduction has led to free distribution for the hell of it, on a massive scale.

    If you looked at the actual history, you'd see these extensions have been funded by corporate rights holders like Disney, who are using lobbyists to basically further their own interests in making a profit. This "shift" is in direct contradiction to the idea behind the copyright clause, and supreme court justices (in dissent) have said so.

    Am I not on the side of the private rights holder here?

    Very, very obviously. To the detriment of society, even!

    I don't think citing this trend is an actual support of your position! It's a trend that's been shoved down congress's throat by money. It's not the public (or even most content creators!!) asking for longer copyrights.

    It's kind of a weird argument anyway. Look this is what we decided on for a law in the past so clearly it must be the best way to approach this problem! I mean I understand that this may not be a new discussion, but that doesn't mean that the fairest/best/most justified position has won in the past. mcdermott pointed out previous laws on copyright for when the printing press was invented as if that validated his position. SKFM pointed out that the laws have been shifting more his direction. Neither is a very good argument for anything really, as there are too many other factors involved with what does or does not become a law.

    If our laws are controlled by the Constitution, and copyright clause is the basis for our IP laws, it is important what that clause means, and what its purpose is. It's why we even have these laws in the first place.

    It's meaning shouldn't change because Disney's copyright on Steamboat Willie is about to expire. Except for it does in reality, because $$$$. So if SKFM wants to cite that as support for his position that copyright should be about profit and not about benefiting society, then I guess it works. We should let corporate interests dictate our copyright law.

    The constitution is not the all deciding law. It can and has been changed. Using previous laws as an argument for what is the best solution is problematic, because there are so many other considerations. I'm not saying anything at all about whether or not Disney should be able to manipulate legislation with money. I'm saying that previous laws are not always indicative of the best solution.

    What SKFM wants would require a Constitutional amendment, yes.

  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    You aren't born with copy rights, the way you are with rights to life, expression, or exclusive and finite properties.

    They're given. By the people. As an exchange.

    I don't believe that you are born with any rights. You only have the rights the state will enforce, to the extent they will enforce them. I don't need to booby trap my car because I am confident that the state will use its monopoly on the use of force to protect it, for as long as I have it. By contrast, we are left to self help (drm) when the state fails to adequately protect our rights in ip. And then eventually you lose state protection all together. I don't we why that should be the case.

    Incidentally, in the state of nature you can copy books, but you can also steal cars, and I see no distinction between the two re:deservingness of protection.

    The fact that if I steal your car, you no longer have that car, is not a significant distinction to you? If I squat in your home, you can no longer occupy that space. If I take your car, you can no longer drive it. If I break your arm, you can no longer use it. But if I copy your book...there's another copy of your book.

    That's why I keep harping on the fact that this "property" is not exclusive.

    In a state of nature, you at least have a natural right and incentive to protect your physical possessions by force. I come to steal your car, you can defend it physically. You publish your book, and you give up that ability. You have no feasible manner in which to hunt down every copy and ensure no more are made. Because you gave up control of it.

    I did, by saying I was not making an economic argument. My position is based on fairness and justice. And the deprivation is of the rightholder's time. I could have lounged around but I wrote a book instead. In exchange, I demand compensation for my choice to produce. You read my book without compensation, and have the benefit of my time and your time. That is manifestly unfair IMO.

    You have decades to be compensated for your time. You were compensated for your choice to produce. You are demanding that others are compensated for your choice to produce, in perpetuity. For a product that does not degrade. If you build a house, continuing work has to go into maintaining that house. Same for a railroad empire. But a book? All that has to happen is people making copies...you need do nothing to maintain it. The audience will, theoretically, do all that work for you.

    So once you've been compensated throughout your lifetime (or whatever period) you are no longer producing. You produced. Once.

    You are suggesting that somebody (in 500 years it won't be you) be compensated, in perpetuity, for a single act of work. Only with intellectual property is that even possible. You don't see a distinction?

    If not, you are being purposefully obtuse, or your brain is straight-up broken. Either way, you are once again the silliest of geese.

    What about a piece of land? That land will be there seemingly forever. It costs the owner of that land nothing to rent the land (not a house/building/whatever, but the land) out for use. This is something that is done. And everyone agrees that the ability to rent this land out forever, without putting in any maintenance yourself, is something that should be perpetual.

    Land is not Intellectual Property.

    If you rent out land to someone, your ability to use it has decreased, because you've ceded that right to the renter, with certain controls, for compensation for your loss.

    If I publish a book about Vampires going to war with an unholy moon god who happens to look like Colonel Sanders with the body of a Fist of the North Star brawler, no matter how many people have a copy, I lose nothing. I still have that idea, I can still distribute it, I can still do more things with that idea.

    Ok, I concede that intellectual property is unique. That still doesn't answer the question of why it HAS to be different than physical property. In some cases you can make a very good argument that it prevents further innovation, in which case I would agree that it should have a limited time frame for ownership. I don't think that being able to make an exact copy of someones work falls into this category. So to me the default position should be that we grant unlimited ownership.

    The last part is I guess only partly true. I'm not 100% convinced that it would be possible to even have this limited copyright be perpetual without having some affect on further innovation, but it seems like it is, and I haven't seen any conclusive arguments that it isn't. I don't see why disney doing their vault thing has prevented anyone from creating new art based on their childhood influences.

    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I might recommend, SKFM, looking into reading a bit about copyright. Going all the way back to the printing press. Because these arguments have already been had, by smarter men than either of us.

    And it seems limited copyrights won. If you can't understand why or how, maybe you should look into it.

    I think part of the problem is that you think computers or the Internet have changed anything. They haven't. They've merely brought audiovisual works into parity with the printed word, where cheap and "perfect" reproduction is now possible.

    But that's not new. You aren't making any argument about Nintendo games that wasn't made when the printing press was invented.

    I would argue that the history of extension of copyright protection to longer and longer periods suggests a shift in my favor.

    And the internet is a game changer because of free distribution of digital goods. The scope of works which can be copied has increased, as has the availability, but most damaging of all, the end of the need for a physical reproduction has led to free distribution for the hell of it, on a massive scale.

    If you looked at the actual history, you'd see these extensions have been funded by corporate rights holders like Disney, who are using lobbyists to basically further their own interests in making a profit. This "shift" is in direct contradiction to the idea behind the copyright clause, and supreme court justices (in dissent) have said so.

    Am I not on the side of the private rights holder here?

    Very, very obviously. To the detriment of society, even!

    I don't think citing this trend is an actual support of your position! It's a trend that's been shoved down congress's throat by money. It's not the public (or even most content creators!!) asking for longer copyrights.

    It's kind of a weird argument anyway. Look this is what we decided on for a law in the past so clearly it must be the best way to approach this problem! I mean I understand that this may not be a new discussion, but that doesn't mean that the fairest/best/most justified position has won in the past. mcdermott pointed out previous laws on copyright for when the printing press was invented as if that validated his position. SKFM pointed out that the laws have been shifting more his direction. Neither is a very good argument for anything really, as there are too many other factors involved with what does or does not become a law.

    If our laws are controlled by the Constitution, and copyright clause is the basis for our IP laws, it is important what that clause means, and what its purpose is. It's why we even have these laws in the first place.

    It's meaning shouldn't change because Disney's copyright on Steamboat Willie is about to expire. Except for it does in reality, because $$$$. So if SKFM wants to cite that as support for his position that copyright should be about profit and not about benefiting society, then I guess it works. We should let corporate interests dictate our copyright law.

    The constitution is not the all deciding law. It can and has been changed. Using previous laws as an argument for what is the best solution is problematic, because there are so many other considerations. I'm not saying anything at all about whether or not Disney should be able to manipulate legislation with money. I'm saying that previous laws are not always indicative of the best solution.

    They may not always bee indicative of the best solution, but the case stands that the artistic world functioned fine, as far as I'm aware, for years before corporations started mucking around with the copyright system to suit their bottom line.

    There's a reason that the system was designed as it was: Because it was recognized that there needed to be a compromise between the ability of culture to freely benefit from a creative and/or intellectual work and the need of the creator to be compensated in order to continue to create such works. The compromise was a temporally limited control over a work, after which point it would become a part of the public domain. The creator can get compensated, thus making a living while they continue to pursue their craft and eventually the public gets a work that has entered their culture to use as they will.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Ok, I concede that intellectual property is unique. That still doesn't answer the question of why it HAS to be different than physical property. In some cases you can make a very good argument that it prevents further innovation, in which case I would agree that it should have a limited time frame for ownership. I don't think that being able to make an exact copy of someones work falls into this category. So to me the default position should be that we grant unlimited ownership.

    If people can not access copies of old works they can not create new works because they would not be able to gain inspiration and insight in to what makes something enjoyable.

    Well they can, but they'd be incredibly lame.

    ---Thomas Jefferson

    mcdermottLord_Asmodeus
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    You aren't born with copy rights, the way you are with rights to life, expression, or exclusive and finite properties.

    They're given. By the people. As an exchange.

    I don't believe that you are born with any rights. You only have the rights the state will enforce, to the extent they will enforce them. I don't need to booby trap my car because I am confident that the state will use its monopoly on the use of force to protect it, for as long as I have it. By contrast, we are left to self help (drm) when the state fails to adequately protect our rights in ip. And then eventually you lose state protection all together. I don't we why that should be the case.

    Incidentally, in the state of nature you can copy books, but you can also steal cars, and I see no distinction between the two re:deservingness of protection.

    The fact that if I steal your car, you no longer have that car, is not a significant distinction to you? If I squat in your home, you can no longer occupy that space. If I take your car, you can no longer drive it. If I break your arm, you can no longer use it. But if I copy your book...there's another copy of your book.

    That's why I keep harping on the fact that this "property" is not exclusive.

    In a state of nature, you at least have a natural right and incentive to protect your physical possessions by force. I come to steal your car, you can defend it physically. You publish your book, and you give up that ability. You have no feasible manner in which to hunt down every copy and ensure no more are made. Because you gave up control of it.

    I did, by saying I was not making an economic argument. My position is based on fairness and justice. And the deprivation is of the rightholder's time. I could have lounged around but I wrote a book instead. In exchange, I demand compensation for my choice to produce. You read my book without compensation, and have the benefit of my time and your time. That is manifestly unfair IMO.

    You have decades to be compensated for your time. You were compensated for your choice to produce. You are demanding that others are compensated for your choice to produce, in perpetuity. For a product that does not degrade. If you build a house, continuing work has to go into maintaining that house. Same for a railroad empire. But a book? All that has to happen is people making copies...you need do nothing to maintain it. The audience will, theoretically, do all that work for you.

    So once you've been compensated throughout your lifetime (or whatever period) you are no longer producing. You produced. Once.

    You are suggesting that somebody (in 500 years it won't be you) be compensated, in perpetuity, for a single act of work. Only with intellectual property is that even possible. You don't see a distinction?

    If not, you are being purposefully obtuse, or your brain is straight-up broken. Either way, you are once again the silliest of geese.

    What about a piece of land? That land will be there seemingly forever. It costs the owner of that land nothing to rent the land (not a house/building/whatever, but the land) out for use. This is something that is done. And everyone agrees that the ability to rent this land out forever, without putting in any maintenance yourself, is something that should be perpetual.

    Land is not Intellectual Property.

    If you rent out land to someone, your ability to use it has decreased, because you've ceded that right to the renter, with certain controls, for compensation for your loss.

    If I publish a book about Vampires going to war with an unholy moon god who happens to look like Colonel Sanders with the body of a Fist of the North Star brawler, no matter how many people have a copy, I lose nothing. I still have that idea, I can still distribute it, I can still do more things with that idea.

    Ok, I concede that intellectual property is unique. That still doesn't answer the question of why it HAS to be different than physical property. In some cases you can make a very good argument that it prevents further innovation, in which case I would agree that it should have a limited time frame for ownership. I don't think that being able to make an exact copy of someones work falls into this category. So to me the default position should be that we grant unlimited ownership.

    The last part is I guess only partly true. I'm not 100% convinced that it would be possible to even have this limited copyright be perpetual without having some affect on further innovation, but it seems like it is, and I haven't seen any conclusive arguments that it isn't. I don't see why disney doing their vault thing has prevented anyone from creating new art based on their childhood influences.

    Because it is inherently different.

    Intellectual property is an idea. You can't be deprived of it by giving it to someone else.

    Swordman McGee. He's a guy made entirely out of magical, floating swords, with a vague, muscular humanoid aura surrounding them. Also he sounds like Tom Selleck.

    You now have the idea of Swordman McGee. I have given you this. But I still have it too. I have lost absolutely nothing relating to Swordman McGee, the idea, by giving it to you. You can do with it as you will and I can do with it as I will.

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    QuidPLALord_Asmodeus
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    Man I am almost certain that it is not in the best interest of humanity that Disney own all intellectual property until the end of creation.

    Take a moment to donate what you can to the International Rescue Committee, the National Immigration Law Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the American Civil Liberties Union. There has never been a more urgent moment to do so.
    AiouaLord_Asmodeus
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Ok, I concede that intellectual property is unique. That still doesn't answer the question of why it HAS to be different than physical property. In some cases you can make a very good argument that it prevents further innovation, in which case I would agree that it should have a limited time frame for ownership. I don't think that being able to make an exact copy of someones work falls into this category. So to me the default position should be that we grant unlimited ownership.

    You. Don't. Own. Anything.

    The second you publish a work, you never own it again. Ever. It's gone. Out there. Better hurry, maybe you can destroy every copy before it's too late.

    If I can make a copy of the thing you "own," you don't own it. That's the point. That intellectual property is unique, and that we should grant "ownership" of it only insofar as it is in the public's interest. And no more.

    Because make no mistake, you are not "protecting property." You are "regulating activities." Namely the activities of those making the copies. You are saying they are not allowed to do a thing they are easily able to do and which does not cause actual harm to anybody, for <reasons>. If <reason> is that the author should be compensated for his effort (I agree!), you've just created a very valid argument for some limited duration of copyright, even up to the life of the author. You've not justified perpetuity, and in general in a free fucking society we regulate people as little as necessary.

    You cannot justify a perpetual license. There is no justification for it. Honestly, there's barely justification for lifetime of author, but I'll cede that there are edge cases of artists and authors whose work remains in obscurity for long periods, only to be discovered in old age.

    Your kids? They're entitled to the money you made while alive, and any possessions you may have. Which, as we've established, doesn't include your works. Well, unless you have, like, copies of them in your house. They can have those.

    Ardol
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    If I could make a copy of your food, and we could both eat it, you'd need a good fucking reason to restrict me from doing so.

    And you should be able to restrict me only insofar as it's absolutely necessary for the public good.

    Now, considering that copies of works aren't exclusive or finite, let's see you justify some perpetual "right to copy."

    QuidAiouaArdolPLAzagdrobLord_Asmodeus
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    It's sort of the nonsense of the "You wouldn't download a pizza" idea the MPAA or whoever tried to put out about combating piracy.

    Fuck that, I would totally download and print out pizza if I could do that and was hungry. No one's lost anything from me downloading a pizza.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    mcdermottPLALord_Asmodeus
This discussion has been closed.