The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
And you are about $20-30 worth of reagents. Yet the actuarial value of a life is routinely valued in the six figures, if not higher.
The data is data argument is a reducio ad absurdam.
That's not what a reductio ad absurdum is.
Your argument about the value of reagents is the reductio.
Note that reductio is the form of an argument and not a criticism of it. It is generally considered to be a valid form of argument/deduction- but there is a group of mathematicians and philosophers who think it is not valid. They, amongst other things, try and reproduce the same proofs of logic and mathematics that we know and love without utilising any reductia(?) ad absurdum (damn you Latin 101, why do you abandon me now). As it turns out, it is largely possible but hard.
He is confusing the proper argument with the fallacy, which doesn't have a name.
In one you show that the argument with other valid premises produces an absurd result. Since true premise ->valid logic-> true conclusion. We can know an argument is invalid if we have instead true premise and false conclusion. So we can show an argument is wrong by showing that it produces absurd results.
Indeed that is what I did when I showed spools logic to be wrong.
But that is not what spool is doing or hedgie is referring to (though he has the wrong name for it) what spool is doing is simply presenting an absurdity. It's like the chewbacca defense. There is zero connection between his logic and his conclusion.
+1
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
And you are about $20-30 worth of reagents. Yet the actuarial value of a life is routinely valued in the six figures, if not higher.
The data is data argument is a reducio ad absurdam.
That's not what a reductio ad absurdum is.
Your argument about the value of reagents is the reductio.
Note that reductio is the form of an argument and not a criticism of it. It is generally considered to be a valid form of argument/deduction- but there is a group of mathematicians and philosophers who think it is not valid. They, amongst other things, try and reproduce the same proofs of logic and mathematics that we know and love without utilising any reductia(?) ad absurdum (damn you Latin 101, why do you abandon me now). As it turns out, it is largely possible but hard.
He is confusing the proper argument with the fallacy, which doesn't have a name.
In one you show that the argument with other valid premises produces an absurd result. Since true premise ->valid logic-> true conclusion. We can know an argument is invalid if we have instead true premise and false conclusion. So we can show an argument is wrong by showing that it produces absurd results.
Indeed that is what I did when I showed spools logic to be wrong.
But that is not what spool is doing or hedgie is referring to (though he has the wrong name for it) what spool is doing is simply presenting an absurdity. It's like the chewbacca defense. There is zero connection between his logic and his conclusion.
I disagree that spool is simply presenting an absurdity though.
Also, it is killing me that I can't find the name of the philosophers who think reductia are invalid and eschew their use as a consequence.
But he is. The specific marginal cost of copying doesn't matter (though iirc it may have an effect on the optimal term) at all to the argument for copyright. All that matters is that the copier doesn't have to pay the fixed costs and we need those fixed costs to be paid for if we want to stimulate new works.
"But now you can copy for freeeeeee!" Is dumb beyond that because you could always copy for "free" as soon as the printing press was invented.
But he is. The specific marginal cost of copying doesn't matter (though iirc it may have an effect on the optimal term) at all to the argument for copyright. All that matters is that the copier doesn't have to pay the fixed costs and we need those fixed costs to be paid for if we want to stimulate new works.
"But now you can copy for freeeeeee!" Is dumb beyond that because you could always copy for "free" as soon as the printing press was invented.
No, you couldn't. You needed a press and your time and the materials and a distribution system. You needed investment, and you were selling an object that someone would buy instead of the Official Object. Every unauthorized sale was clearly and obviously a lost sale. The impact of pirating was a clear loss to the creator.
Now, that is not the slightest bit true, at any stage. Copying takes no time, costs no money, is distributed with a free system to an infinite number of people for no investment, and can't be mapped to a dilution of the work or a lost sale at all. Hell, we do it by accident. You did it back on page 12 and I'll bet you haven't dumped DeCSS from your browser cache yet, you naughty criminal.
But even so, you're focusing on this one facet as though it explodes the entire argument. It doesn't matter if you think creators need to recoup fixed costs in order for new works to be created because every recorded song is a prime number and a stegosaurus gif and a digital copy of a photograph of a natural language haiku of the source code and a cached copy on a million hard disks and a distributed series of IP packets with additional data attached and a playable mp3, all at once.
Copyright can't work anymore, no matter how much anybody wants.
New songs keep being made despite Youtube. People keep filming movies even though it only takes me ~10 minutes to download one. Infringement is trivial and rampant now, but new things keep being created.
Copyright still works just fine, otherwise nobody would complain about it getting in the way of their free stuff.
It could be much improved, of course, but it sure as hell does something.
Only in the places where it's still inconvenient to copy because no one has put in the effort to streamline the process, or unevenly with no regard for justice or fairness or even simple logic. See twitch muting streams of people playing games because the in-game audio includes a copyrighted song.
It certainly could be improved such that we fuck over fewer people for ridiculous shit and claw back some public good from creators, to repay us for all that state enforcement power we let them use against us while they were making money. But even if we did that, it would still be nonsensical silliness that couldn't be enforced or explained. Why should I be fined for possessing a number? It's ludicrous.
New songs keep being made despite Youtube. People keep filming movies even though it only takes me ~10 minutes to download one. Infringement is trivial and rampant now, but new things keep being created.
Copyright still works just fine, otherwise nobody would complain about it getting in the way of their free stuff.
It could be much improved, of course, but it sure as hell does something.
Only in the places where it's still inconvenient to copy because no one has put in the effort to streamline the process, or unevenly with no regard for justice or fairness or even simple logic. See twitch muting streams of people playing games because the in-game audio includes a copyrighted song.
It certainly could be improved such that we fuck over fewer people for ridiculous shit and claw back some public good from creators, to repay us for all that state enforcement power we let them use against us while they were making money. But even if we did that, it would still be nonsensical silliness that couldn't be enforced or explained. Why should I be fined for possessing a number? It's ludicrous.
Yeaaaaaah. So what you're saying is we're going to have an epidemic of speakeasies showing films at full size as soon as someone gets their "justice" on.
All ownership is fiction based on distribution of power, provided by the state to benefit the state. Copyright was beneficial to creators when it was -hard- to steal shit and required -effort-. Now that it doesn't require effort for a lot of particular scenarios, copyright is MORE valuable to creators because there is not the inertia of difficulty protecting them anymore.
I still want to know how the hell we're going to fund $300 million movies with freaking Patreon.
Edit: Mostly I'm just hearing reasons for artists to dramatically limit access to their works so they can charge a bigger fee to the few people who are willing to pay.
So how do we fund expensive projects in a post-copyright era?
Will Disney need to Kickstarter its next $300 million movie?
My claim is that we already live in a post-copyright era in that regard. Disney seems to be doing just fine.
Steam, Netflix etc. have proved that it is possible to compete with free copies.
So how do we fund expensive projects in a post-copyright era?
Will Disney need to Kickstarter its next $300 million movie?
My claim is that we already live in a post-copyright era in that regard. Disney seems to be doing just fine.
Steam, Netflix etc. have proved that it is possible to compete with free copies.
So where do you think that $300 million comes from?
I would guess that most of it comes from people who wants a theater experience for their Disney movies. Not to mention the toys.
Clearly they are getting the money from somewhere.
But he is. The specific marginal cost of copying doesn't matter (though iirc it may have an effect on the optimal term) at all to the argument for copyright. All that matters is that the copier doesn't have to pay the fixed costs and we need those fixed costs to be paid for if we want to stimulate new works.
"But now you can copy for freeeeeee!" Is dumb beyond that because you could always copy for "free" as soon as the printing press was invented.
The difference between even modern developed world CDs and MP3s is substantial. Retail takes about half (or did last time I researched it), as opposed to digital distribution which is so cheap people volunteer to do it for free.
Also, the cost / benefit changes substantially. If you're looking at a society wide maximizing policy, it might well be better to have 5 works available to everyone in the world vs. 10 works only available to some. Now that so many logistical hurdles are non-existent, while I don't advocate abolishing all copyright at this time, that might be a minor to moderate improvement over having it.
I think spool might be overselling the difference, but copyright absolutely needs to continue to rejustify itself as technology and art changes. To give another example, if we could provide a basic income of $40K USD (2015 dollars) to every adult, it might be worth asking if artists shouldn't be working for "free," insofar as they would monetize Kickstarter or Patreon like models, rather than relying on copyright.
I would guess that most of it comes from people who wants a theater experience for their Disney movies. Not to mention the toys.
Clearly they are getting the money from somewhere.
How would Disney make money from theaters if theaters could just make copies of the films for free?
Why would anyone buy toys specifically from Disney once 3D printing is fully functional?
I would guess that most of it comes from people who wants a theater experience for their Disney movies. Not to mention the toys.
Clearly they are getting the money from somewhere.
How would Disney make money from theaters if theaters could just make copies of the films for free?
Why would anyone buy toys specifically from Disney once 3D printing is fully functional?
Again, it doesn't make sense to talk about copyright as if its just one right.
The theater can poses a free copy, its practically impossible to prevent this once a copy is in the wild. So the simple right to copy and to poses a copy is dead when it comes to goods that can be digitized.
However the theater is most likely interested in more than just possessing a copy. It wants to show the movie in the theater and make a profit out of it.
Not allowing them to do so is something we can actually enforce! So the right to present your copy to the public and the right to profit off your copy are both still alive and relevant.
3D printing is a whole new can of worms that we haven't begun to fully open yet. But price isn't the only factor when it comes to competing goods. Convenience and quality are also things people care about.
So, how many people can I show Spider-Man 14 to on my laptop in this scenario?
As many as you want.
But going to the movies is both an experience and a cultural touch stone. For the benefit of which people will pay. I doubt that people will be so motivated to pay for "going to Fireguy's garage and watching stuff on his laptop".
0
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Of course the other thing is, a lack of copyright doesn't prevent other contracts being entered into or mandate that something is released to the general public from the get go.
An arrangement between the movie studio/distribution company might mandate that no-one at the cinema may distribute their prints/digital movie files. A cinema may prevent people from filming because it is disruptive. And so on and so forth.
In such a scenario the box office remains an important source of revenue.
I also note that we are already in a universe in which there are leaks and cam rips and other such things and yet, hundreds of millions of people go to the cinema none the less
Of course the other thing is, a lack of copyright doesn't prevent other contracts being entered into or mandate that something is released to the general public from the get go.
An arrangement between the movie studio/distribution company might mandate that no-one at the cinema may distribute their prints/digital movie files. A cinema may prevent people from filming because it is disruptive. And so on and so forth.
In such a scenario the box office remains an important source of revenue.
I also note that we are already in a universe in which there are leaks and cam rips and other such things and yet, hundreds of millions of people go to the cinema none the less
Yes, but
CinimaA has a contract with studioA.
This does not prevent cinimaB or studioB from taking one of those leaked copies and using it.
Copyright does that effectively enough.
They moistly come out at night, moistly.
0
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Of course the other thing is, a lack of copyright doesn't prevent other contracts being entered into or mandate that something is released to the general public from the get go.
An arrangement between the movie studio/distribution company might mandate that no-one at the cinema may distribute their prints/digital movie files. A cinema may prevent people from filming because it is disruptive. And so on and so forth.
In such a scenario the box office remains an important source of revenue.
I also note that we are already in a universe in which there are leaks and cam rips and other such things and yet, hundreds of millions of people go to the cinema none the less
Yes, but
CinimaA has a contract with studioA.
This does not prevent cinimaB or studioB from taking one of those leaked copies and using it.
Copyright does that effectively enough.
I am not particularly interested in preventing it, merely pointing out it isn't the doomsday scenario described.
That said, as I understand it, it is rarely the prints or digital media files that are released, which would offer a substantially poorer experience
Regulating who can have high quality prints and who can distribute them in theaters is also far more feasible than regulating how many people can watch someone's TIVO.
Of course the other thing is, a lack of copyright doesn't prevent other contracts being entered into or mandate that something is released to the general public from the get go.
An arrangement between the movie studio/distribution company might mandate that no-one at the cinema may distribute their prints/digital movie files. A cinema may prevent people from filming because it is disruptive. And so on and so forth.
In such a scenario the box office remains an important source of revenue.
I also note that we are already in a universe in which there are leaks and cam rips and other such things and yet, hundreds of millions of people go to the cinema none the less
It does remove the grim spector of the FBI from the equation, which makes it far more attractive to figure out a way to get your hands on those prints. By removing copyright, you're removing all protection or mitigation options from spillage.
Cinema B gives 16 year old projectionist in India $25,000 cash-money to violate his employment contract. Cinema B makes millions on half price tickets to Avengers 3 in IMAX 3D; gives no fucks about what happens to kid.
Studio A has no agreement with Cinema B, and no longer has any legal ground to prevent the showings, all they can do is get mad at Cinema A for not posting armed guards on their property.
There weeks later, Cinema B sells the print to Netflix, who now streams EVERYTHING at half the price.
And consumers rejoice, for a while. Until that money stops coming in, and those movies stop getting made. Only then, in our darkest hour, do YouTube viewers finally realize that ad revenue may actually have a purpose relevant to their interests, and reflect on what they would have even been doing for that 30 seconds while their content providers were trying to pay the bills.
So it seems feasible that the problem may ultimately correct itself; but it could be rough going, and absent legal constraints on third parties, contracts between creators and distributors do not offer anything close to the protection an actual law does.
New songs keep being made despite Youtube. People keep filming movies even though it only takes me ~10 minutes to download one. Infringement is trivial and rampant now, but new things keep being created.
Copyright, as a set of laws, is non-functional.
Copyright, as a social contract between author and consumer, is still a thing and the reason traditional media continues to do well. Nowadays buying a book or a song is an act of patronage.
The first is largely irrelevant. The second is what keeps the creative industries alive in their present form. Forcing some industries to adapt might be desirable, but I can think of a few where doing so is likely to lead to awful results which further disenfranchise consumers, this time with chains of iron rather than paper. This is why I think piracy as civil disobedience is problematic.
Grey Paladin on
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes to make it possible." - T.E. Lawrence
New songs keep being made despite Youtube. People keep filming movies even though it only takes me ~10 minutes to download one. Infringement is trivial and rampant now, but new things keep being created.
Copyright still works just fine, otherwise nobody would complain about it getting in the way of their free stuff.
It could be much improved, of course, but it sure as hell does something.
Only in the places where it's still inconvenient to copy because no one has put in the effort to streamline the process, or unevenly with no regard for justice or fairness or even simple logic. See twitch muting streams of people playing games because the in-game audio includes a copyrighted song.
It certainly could be improved such that we fuck over fewer people for ridiculous shit and claw back some public good from creators, to repay us for all that state enforcement power we let them use against us while they were making money. But even if we did that, it would still be nonsensical silliness that couldn't be enforced or explained. Why should I be fined for possessing a number? It's ludicrous.
Yeaaaaaah. So what you're saying is we're going to have an epidemic of speakeasies showing films at full size as soon as someone gets their "justice" on.
All ownership is fiction based on distribution of power, provided by the state to benefit the state. Copyright was beneficial to creators when it was -hard- to steal shit and required -effort-. Now that it doesn't require effort for a lot of particular scenarios, copyright is MORE valuable to creators because there is not the inertia of difficulty protecting them anymore.
I still want to know how the hell we're going to fund $300 million movies with freaking Patreon.
Edit: Mostly I'm just hearing reasons for artists to dramatically limit access to their works so they can charge a bigger fee to the few people who are willing to pay.
I think scarcity of art should also be illegal in a digital age, except for the natural scarcity price may create and even that should probably have limits.
For instance: Preorder or vendor "exclusive" video game DLC that permanently ceases to exist for consumers at some point? That's not just an immoral (albeit effective) marketing gimmick to me. It should be illegal.
Copyright still works just fine, otherwise nobody would complain about it getting in the way of their free stuff.
It could be much improved, of course, but it sure as hell does something.
The public domain, however, does not work fine and is more important than copyright. The way I see it, copyright infringes on the public domain.
Private ownership of land infringes on public ownership. *shrug* Rights vs. rights.
Right. So in those cases we need to examine what is the best balance and current copyright law while shitting on the very concept of public domain isn't it.
Copyright still works just fine, otherwise nobody would complain about it getting in the way of their free stuff.
It could be much improved, of course, but it sure as hell does something.
The public domain, however, does not work fine and is more important than copyright. The way I see it, copyright infringes on the public domain.
Private ownership of land infringes on public ownership. *shrug* Rights vs. rights.
Right. So in those cases we need to examine what is the best balance and current copyright law while shitting on the very concept of public domain isn't it.
Right. Which is why proponents of copyright law in this thread have in multiple instances suggested less aggressive and less Disney-rific balances.
How would you strike a balance that wouldn't screw over artists and subsequently reduce the amount of quality of art that is produced each year?
Seriously though, Hollywood many times considers a movie to be a success or failure on purely on the opening weekend ticket sales. I'm pretty sure that by the time fourteen years have based, 99% or great of sales have occurred for every movie company except Disney.
So maybe we shouldn't base copyright law around the needs of one corporation.
Seriously though, Hollywood many times considers a movie to be a success or failure on purely on the opening weekend ticket sales. I'm pretty sure that by the time fourteen years have based, 99% or great of sales have occurred for every movie company except Disney.
So maybe we shouldn't base copyright law around the needs of one corporation.
So, what, you're comfortable with the end of big budget art?
yeah... youtube videos or kickstarters are never going to replace big budget blockbusters, of which there is clearly market demand
even if we make copyright less dumb, commercial distribution (even including a few years later: eg syndication for tv) still needs to be heavily regulated or those will just cease to exist
yeah... youtube videos or kickstarters are never going to replace big budget blockbusters, of which there is clearly market demand
even if we make copyright less dumb, commercial distribution (even including a few years later: eg syndication for tv) still needs to be heavily regulated or those will just cease to exist
Yep!
We need nuance and consideration for details and specifics and consequences instead of just burn it all down, which is my trademark so back off.
Seriously though, Hollywood many times considers a movie to be a success or failure on purely on the opening weekend ticket sales. I'm pretty sure that by the time fourteen years have based, 99% or great of sales have occurred for every movie company except Disney.
So maybe we shouldn't base copyright law around the needs of one corporation.
So, what, you're comfortable with the end of big budget art?
I doubt a 14 year copyright would do much to big budget art. Aside from forcing Disney to open their vault.
There are a lot of people arguing different levels of copyright protection in the thread. I had the same impression from the first line of the post, but I don't feel he's arguing for the full removal of copyright.
Seriously though, Hollywood many times considers a movie to be a success or failure on purely on the opening weekend ticket sales. I'm pretty sure that by the time fourteen years have based, 99% or great of sales have occurred for every movie company except Disney.
So maybe we shouldn't base copyright law around the needs of one corporation.
So, what, you're comfortable with the end of big budget art?
I doubt a 14 year copyright would do much to big budget art. Aside from forcing Disney to open their vault.
There are a lot of people arguing different levels of copyright protection in the thread. I had the same impression from the first line of the post, but I don't feel he's arguing for the full removal of copyright.
Yeah I'm not really sure how a fourteen year copyright is going to make the blockbuster machine fall apart.
By the time you hit home video, if you haven't met the level of profit designated as a success, there's almost no chance you're getting a sequel, to say nothing of the rest of the way financing works in the industry
Posts
I, whut, how o.O
....was... was that the joke...?
He is confusing the proper argument with the fallacy, which doesn't have a name.
In one you show that the argument with other valid premises produces an absurd result. Since true premise ->valid logic-> true conclusion. We can know an argument is invalid if we have instead true premise and false conclusion. So we can show an argument is wrong by showing that it produces absurd results.
Indeed that is what I did when I showed spools logic to be wrong.
But that is not what spool is doing or hedgie is referring to (though he has the wrong name for it) what spool is doing is simply presenting an absurdity. It's like the chewbacca defense. There is zero connection between his logic and his conclusion.
I disagree that spool is simply presenting an absurdity though.
Also, it is killing me that I can't find the name of the philosophers who think reductia are invalid and eschew their use as a consequence.
"But now you can copy for freeeeeee!" Is dumb beyond that because you could always copy for "free" as soon as the printing press was invented.
No, you couldn't. You needed a press and your time and the materials and a distribution system. You needed investment, and you were selling an object that someone would buy instead of the Official Object. Every unauthorized sale was clearly and obviously a lost sale. The impact of pirating was a clear loss to the creator.
Now, that is not the slightest bit true, at any stage. Copying takes no time, costs no money, is distributed with a free system to an infinite number of people for no investment, and can't be mapped to a dilution of the work or a lost sale at all. Hell, we do it by accident. You did it back on page 12 and I'll bet you haven't dumped DeCSS from your browser cache yet, you naughty criminal.
But even so, you're focusing on this one facet as though it explodes the entire argument. It doesn't matter if you think creators need to recoup fixed costs in order for new works to be created because every recorded song is a prime number and a stegosaurus gif and a digital copy of a photograph of a natural language haiku of the source code and a cached copy on a million hard disks and a distributed series of IP packets with additional data attached and a playable mp3, all at once.
Copyright can't work anymore, no matter how much anybody wants.
It could be much improved, of course, but it sure as hell does something.
Presses were not uncommon. Certainly not like computers are now but damn son stop with the strawman.
Only in the places where it's still inconvenient to copy because no one has put in the effort to streamline the process, or unevenly with no regard for justice or fairness or even simple logic. See twitch muting streams of people playing games because the in-game audio includes a copyrighted song.
It certainly could be improved such that we fuck over fewer people for ridiculous shit and claw back some public good from creators, to repay us for all that state enforcement power we let them use against us while they were making money. But even if we did that, it would still be nonsensical silliness that couldn't be enforced or explained. Why should I be fined for possessing a number? It's ludicrous.
You need a library, is what you need. All the tools are free.
Yeaaaaaah. So what you're saying is we're going to have an epidemic of speakeasies showing films at full size as soon as someone gets their "justice" on.
All ownership is fiction based on distribution of power, provided by the state to benefit the state. Copyright was beneficial to creators when it was -hard- to steal shit and required -effort-. Now that it doesn't require effort for a lot of particular scenarios, copyright is MORE valuable to creators because there is not the inertia of difficulty protecting them anymore.
I still want to know how the hell we're going to fund $300 million movies with freaking Patreon.
Edit: Mostly I'm just hearing reasons for artists to dramatically limit access to their works so they can charge a bigger fee to the few people who are willing to pay.
My claim is that we already live in a post-copyright era in that regard. Disney seems to be doing just fine.
Steam, Netflix etc. have proved that it is possible to compete with free copies.
So where do you think that $300 million comes from?
Theme parks?
Clearly they are getting the money from somewhere.
The difference between even modern developed world CDs and MP3s is substantial. Retail takes about half (or did last time I researched it), as opposed to digital distribution which is so cheap people volunteer to do it for free.
Also, the cost / benefit changes substantially. If you're looking at a society wide maximizing policy, it might well be better to have 5 works available to everyone in the world vs. 10 works only available to some. Now that so many logistical hurdles are non-existent, while I don't advocate abolishing all copyright at this time, that might be a minor to moderate improvement over having it.
I think spool might be overselling the difference, but copyright absolutely needs to continue to rejustify itself as technology and art changes. To give another example, if we could provide a basic income of $40K USD (2015 dollars) to every adult, it might be worth asking if artists shouldn't be working for "free," insofar as they would monetize Kickstarter or Patreon like models, rather than relying on copyright.
How would Disney make money from theaters if theaters could just make copies of the films for free?
Why would anyone buy toys specifically from Disney once 3D printing is fully functional?
Again, it doesn't make sense to talk about copyright as if its just one right.
The theater can poses a free copy, its practically impossible to prevent this once a copy is in the wild. So the simple right to copy and to poses a copy is dead when it comes to goods that can be digitized.
However the theater is most likely interested in more than just possessing a copy. It wants to show the movie in the theater and make a profit out of it.
Not allowing them to do so is something we can actually enforce! So the right to present your copy to the public and the right to profit off your copy are both still alive and relevant.
3D printing is a whole new can of worms that we haven't begun to fully open yet. But price isn't the only factor when it comes to competing goods. Convenience and quality are also things people care about.
As many as you want.
But going to the movies is both an experience and a cultural touch stone. For the benefit of which people will pay. I doubt that people will be so motivated to pay for "going to Fireguy's garage and watching stuff on his laptop".
An arrangement between the movie studio/distribution company might mandate that no-one at the cinema may distribute their prints/digital movie files. A cinema may prevent people from filming because it is disruptive. And so on and so forth.
In such a scenario the box office remains an important source of revenue.
I also note that we are already in a universe in which there are leaks and cam rips and other such things and yet, hundreds of millions of people go to the cinema none the less
Yes, but
CinimaA has a contract with studioA.
This does not prevent cinimaB or studioB from taking one of those leaked copies and using it.
Copyright does that effectively enough.
I am not particularly interested in preventing it, merely pointing out it isn't the doomsday scenario described.
That said, as I understand it, it is rarely the prints or digital media files that are released, which would offer a substantially poorer experience
It does remove the grim spector of the FBI from the equation, which makes it far more attractive to figure out a way to get your hands on those prints. By removing copyright, you're removing all protection or mitigation options from spillage.
Cinema B gives 16 year old projectionist in India $25,000 cash-money to violate his employment contract. Cinema B makes millions on half price tickets to Avengers 3 in IMAX 3D; gives no fucks about what happens to kid.
Studio A has no agreement with Cinema B, and no longer has any legal ground to prevent the showings, all they can do is get mad at Cinema A for not posting armed guards on their property.
There weeks later, Cinema B sells the print to Netflix, who now streams EVERYTHING at half the price.
And consumers rejoice, for a while. Until that money stops coming in, and those movies stop getting made. Only then, in our darkest hour, do YouTube viewers finally realize that ad revenue may actually have a purpose relevant to their interests, and reflect on what they would have even been doing for that 30 seconds while their content providers were trying to pay the bills.
So it seems feasible that the problem may ultimately correct itself; but it could be rough going, and absent legal constraints on third parties, contracts between creators and distributors do not offer anything close to the protection an actual law does.
Copyright, as a social contract between author and consumer, is still a thing and the reason traditional media continues to do well. Nowadays buying a book or a song is an act of patronage.
The first is largely irrelevant. The second is what keeps the creative industries alive in their present form. Forcing some industries to adapt might be desirable, but I can think of a few where doing so is likely to lead to awful results which further disenfranchise consumers, this time with chains of iron rather than paper. This is why I think piracy as civil disobedience is problematic.
The public domain, however, does not work fine and is more important than copyright. The way I see it, copyright infringes on the public domain.
I think scarcity of art should also be illegal in a digital age, except for the natural scarcity price may create and even that should probably have limits.
For instance: Preorder or vendor "exclusive" video game DLC that permanently ceases to exist for consumers at some point? That's not just an immoral (albeit effective) marketing gimmick to me. It should be illegal.
There is a question of which art should be preserved, and who should pay for it.
Dick picks are no less art than Arkham City games, and often far more tasteful, but who is going to pay for all of those dingalings?
Private ownership of land infringes on public ownership. *shrug* Rights vs. rights.
More tasteful? Really?
Right. So in those cases we need to examine what is the best balance and current copyright law while shitting on the very concept of public domain isn't it.
Right. Which is why proponents of copyright law in this thread have in multiple instances suggested less aggressive and less Disney-rific balances.
How would you strike a balance that wouldn't screw over artists and subsequently reduce the amount of quality of art that is produced each year?
How would you fund the $300 million movies?
Seriously though, Hollywood many times considers a movie to be a success or failure on purely on the opening weekend ticket sales. I'm pretty sure that by the time fourteen years have based, 99% or great of sales have occurred for every movie company except Disney.
So maybe we shouldn't base copyright law around the needs of one corporation.
those cases are very easy to enforce, as are most cases where someone is directly profiting off someone's recent work
I mean just because the current law is broken and dumb doesn't mean that we can't have any laws
So, what, you're comfortable with the end of big budget art?
even if we make copyright less dumb, commercial distribution (even including a few years later: eg syndication for tv) still needs to be heavily regulated or those will just cease to exist
Yep!
We need nuance and consideration for details and specifics and consequences instead of just burn it all down, which is my trademark so back off.
I doubt a 14 year copyright would do much to big budget art. Aside from forcing Disney to open their vault.
There are a lot of people arguing different levels of copyright protection in the thread. I had the same impression from the first line of the post, but I don't feel he's arguing for the full removal of copyright.
I can only respond to what he says.
By the time you hit home video, if you haven't met the level of profit designated as a success, there's almost no chance you're getting a sequel, to say nothing of the rest of the way financing works in the industry