What If There Was No Copyright Law? 316
"Now, think about what this means. These countries have no protection for intellectual property, at least not for any not produced and/or registered within their borders. That means you can freely appropriate music, DVDs, commercial software, GPL'd code -- anything available is public domain, as we understand the term. This used to be of only marginal interest since the infrastructure for entrepreneurial types to capitalize on this lack of protection wasn't available, but the growing use of the Internet makes this lack of universal copyright applicability a bit more interesting.
Sooner or later, these outlying regions are going to have significant Internet connectivity. Will they all bring their intellectual property protection standards into line with the 146 Berne nations ... or not? And if not, what exactly, will happen then? Is intellectual property protection important enough to cause diplomatic isolation? Trade wars? Real war?"
Can't you grant copyright to a country? (Score:3)
Of course, it wouldn't quite work for warez etc as it'll be (c) Mickeysoft Inc, USA (example) and if you live in the US you'll still be liable for copyright theft.
Oh - don't forget that Napster was designed to be a _legal_ service, _N_ew _A_rtist _P_rogram - it wasn't made to shift copyright materials around the 'net.
Richy C. [beebware.com]
--
Opportunities for those Countries exist. (Score:2)
Why it Exists (Score:2)
"But Doctor, if they take away my head surely I'll die?"
Temp Laws (Score:3)
The reasons for a good economy are mind bogglingly vast, there is little doubt that to promote research and development under a capitalist system companies will require some sort of protection in the way of copyright. To remove it completely would discourage the for-profit folks from pouring money into new technology. I think what has been lost, particularly since the advent of 'intellectual property' is that these laws were originally intended to be temporary. Just left in place long enough to recoup any money put into R&D. Corporations have successfully convinced lawmakers and the USPTO that they need their copyrights extended beyond any reasonable period so that they can maintain their market advantages.
The best solution, in my humble opinion, is that a no loopholes time limit be placed on all copyrights beyond which they cannot be held. This would force companies to take a harder look at whether they can make enough money quickly enough to justify product development. It might harm R&D in a small way, things that wouldn't provide enough return during the copyright period just wouldn't get done, but it might also improve competition and swing a little of the power away from big business.
As an aside, was the Lettermen network switch the advent of intellectual property? I seem to remember that it was treated as a radical concept by the media.
Evloution of existing age-old situation? (Score:2)
I guess the closest example to look at is that of China, where it is well known that you can get most things counterfeited, be it clothes, watches or software or CDs or DVDs etc.
Companies complain about the piracy, and from time to time there are token raids to shut them down, but they just move on and start up elsewhere.
No government has decided to make anything formal or make any diplomatic protests about it.
However, this is probably still sufficiently different from the examples being raised by the poster, because in the new examples, access to said data is much much easier (OK, I can get a CD stuffed full of pirate software for $10 in Hong Kong, but it costs a lot to get there!).
Personally, I would expect that M$ et al would go after those whom they suspectedof downloading the pirate software etc, rather than the servers themselves in those cases?
Now, how they could work out exactly WHO was downloading is a different question, of course!
(Surely M$ wouldn't stoop to organising sustained DDoS attacks on such servers, would they?)
Anyway, just MHO, do with it as you will!
--
Only in the short term... (Score:2)
Some countries (especially Arab) will obviously give the US the 2 finger salute, but even so I don't think the situation will last forever.
We will have to wait and see how companies like Havenco get on...
Servers in Angola? (Score:2)
Actually I think it would be really good if these countries got a better infrastructure when it comes to internet; after all we've taken everything from them already, so now it's time for them to exploit us a bit.
Afghanistan ain't going to help with Napster (Score:5)
According to the CIA world factobook, Afghanistan is also the world's largest illicit opium producer and exports large amounts of hashish, and profits from that drug trade go to continuing the perpetual civil war.
While I don't regard the issues raised by Napster as trivial, a bit of perspective might go a long way sometimes.
Copyright is *essential* (Score:2)
Unfortunately copyright law is essential to human endeavour thanks to the fallen nature of human kind. And whilst we might all like to pretend that we're enlightened people who could exist in a state where everything is available to everyone, let's face it the fall of the USSR showed us that this state of affairs just isn't in human nature - all it takes is one person to spoil it for everyone.
Anyway, in a capitalist society it is a given that it is far cheaper, and therefore better, to steal someone else's work rather than invest the time and resources in producing your own. Theft has a far lower cost, so it's far more appealing on purely economic grounds. Without such protective measures as copyright, there's no incentive to invest in producing your own goods, especially when we're talking about something as ephermal as the things copyright covers - written works, music and art. This is why I think Libertarianism is flawed - it encourages anything that increases wealth without regard to ethics in its purest form.
Sure some people produce it for the love of it, but if they can't aren't able to be rewarded for their efforts then they won't have the time to fully concentrate on what they do - they'd have to get jobs and spend most of their time and energy trying to survive. Copyright ensures that people can profit enough from what they produce so that they can continue doing such work.
Copyright is therefore a necessary part of any capitalist socioeconomic system in which you want to encourage creativity and development. Without it, we'd have stagnation and a slip back into barbarism and the Dark Ages.
What is your's to stay your's (Score:3)
Human nature is to have. To have more, and finaly, have even more. It is not neccessarily to make other not to have, have less, and even less. At least, I hope so. If not, we may as well fire a good atom-bomb over all of t his place, and erase this virus from the universe!
Without theoretical dreams, we would all be killing, raping and making each other starve. Oh, waitabit - we are...
Re:Can't you grant copyright to a country? (Score:2)
Just because they aren't signatories to the international conventions on IP doesn't mean they don't have IP laws.
-
Re:The Pope? (Score:3)
Re:No copyright law? (Score:4)
Copyright protection is a good idea. I believe an artist or creator should be able to dictate, at least for a while (for example until their death) what is done with or to their creations. However, why these rights should semi-automatically be transferred to publishers and producers, or why they should last for 70 years past the creator's death is wrong and excessive in my opinion. All of our common heritage and culture has been created by someone, and the concept of claiming ownership to it is a fairly recent invention.
(Please deposit $12.50 in order to cover the license for us singing "Happy Birthday to You".)
IP in the world... (Score:3)
Anyway, the countries that didn't sign the WIPO agreement aren't factors in the internet or in pretty much anything else - some of them have deep political problems, others are just plain anti-american or does anyone think that WIPO isn't an american strategy to corner inginuity (sp?)? You talked about these issues in the long term, by then there's a probabilistic chance that things will change... in favor of what WIPO wants.
These poor little countries can't survive or stand alone without international trade (look at China for example). Eventually - like it or not - they will open up and they will fall in line like everyone else because the World's biggest economic titan - the USA - will set the Rule which is "You will obey me".
--
All browsers' default homepage should read: Don't Panic...
Copyrights are dead! (Score:2)
Today things are different: Many "artists" are little more than wage slaves (programmers and other engineers), others are tied hand and feet to their masters, the record companies. Who make the money? Rarely if ever it is the artist who gets to be rich.
Enter the internet with it's 0-day warez sites, Napster, Freedom, etc. Enter the open source movement (or free software, or whatever you want to call it).
The copying-stuff-is-theft concept doesn't seem to fly with many of Napster's users, even if the cops and the big companies still believe in it, they seem to be quite unsuccessful in stopping warez sites.
Maybe, if all these trends continue, our kids will live in a world with no copyrights. Many things will have to change. Who knows? Maybe every bar will have a live band in it again, maybe Windows will be GPL'ed
Unfortunately, it's not that easy. (Score:5)
You can't conclude that there is no IP enforcement just because a country isn't signed up on one of these lists. That's like assuming that a country has no role international political role because it's not in the UN. Again, Taiwan would be a good example of how that would be an absurd assumption.
Remove the ancient laws, or at least update'em. (Score:5)
First of all, if I produce something, I shouldn't be able to earn money on that single product my entire life. If I make something, I should be able to sell it, but then I lose control over it.
Patents *used* to be an incentive for research, and to open up formulas. Its not anymore. Either people keep it a tradesecret, or they patent it to prevent others from making "copies" for the next 20 years. Patents are no longer "so that the public gains from it in the long run". Patents are now in place to prevent people from making more efficient solutions, "for the next 20 years" - so that the creator may benefit mostly from it.
The problem is, everybody else loses from the possibility of patents. If someone else things up the same thing, he can't use it, because someone else has *patented* it. Even if the second to come up with the idea, never had seen the product the first one patented.
Back to copyright. If I made good music, I would be *glad* that people enjoyed my music so much that they shared it. I would be *glad* if people listened to my music. If I wanted money from it, i would make concerts and so forth. I should not sit with copyright on the material for the next 70 years or how long it is. After I had made it available, people should be able to share it, and enjoy it.
The same goes for software.
Of course, this removes the business oportunities to a great extent, or at least the current business oportunities. It wouldn't be possible to earn money the same way as today. Of course, you could sell CD's, "collectors editions" and so forth - which your hardcore fans would buy. You would get money from those who truly enjoyed your music, but not from those that listened to it once or twice.
Furthermore, you would get money from concerts. People would pay to watch your concerts, and that would make you money.
Oh, I could go on for ages and ages. I simply want copyright to be a thing of the past.
--
Copyright will be by choice in the future (Score:2)
So naive (Score:5)
I would think that something like overseas napster would certainly fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government as it affects both interstate and international commerce. How quickly do you think a law would be drafted and passed to regulate and even prevent us from accessing napster? Not that these laws by themselves would ammount to much, people would simply route around them, and might even have fun doing so. But the penalties for breaking this law might be severe for those who got caught. Ever hear of a little country called Cuba? Guess what, its illegal to trade with them. Has been for decades. I don't know exactly what the penalties are for doing so, or even if they are routinely enforced. But I do know it is illegal because it is considered "trading with the enemy." Kind of like trading with old Saddam during the Gulf War. I can't imagine the penalties are nice, even if I can't recall them being enforced recently.
This whole "I put my server in Rangoon, so now you can't touch me!" attitude smacks of juvenile cluelessness. It reminds me of some kid trying to use rules designed to govern/suppress him or her against the authority figures who created them in the first place. I'm sorry, but the rules are written for the benefit of those who create them and will be revised when they are found lacking in this regard. Ultimately they are little more than an agreed upon ritual dictating the methods which must be used in the exercise of power.
So please, don't be so naive.
Lee Reynolds
Re:What is your's to stay your's (Score:2)
I agree, most certainly, and I am a big advocate of open source - BUT...
Not everyone is, and they never will be. People will always be paranoid (what if someone else is using MY work somewhere else making more money?) and they will always want to think that they have some exclusive right over what they have made.
And.. although I hate comparing two distinct subjects this is where the Communism-analogy comes in. Of course there will be people who believ in Communism and try to make it worth but they will never be the majority - and even a minority of those wanting copyright justifies it's existence.
In my opinon - if you want copyright you have the right, if you don't you have the right. It's your choice but you must also repsect other people's.
"But Doctor, if they take away my head surely I'll die?"
I think the discussion shouldn't really be about.. (Score:5)
Reading the posts here I think most people agree that copyright is nesscesary and won't go away.
Copyright (and patents) exist to allow peoples (and companies) to make money. In itself that's not a bad thing.
Ofcourse how long a work should profit from protection is extremely important.
If say we had a maximum of 5 years to copyright profits from sale could still be made (aplenty methinks). Giving copanies, authors whoever, time enough to come up with something new.
Of course free distrubution would be marvelous but you can't force people/artists/whoever into it. Many people rely on existing distribution sytsems. And spreading it around for free doesn't seem to be a healthy way to make a living to a lot of people for some reason :)
They deserve the choice to change the way they spread their product.
At current the "greed part" of copyright seems to be dominant, 95 years is next to infinity in human terms, the only ones who profit from such a long time are people who had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the work!
Ok just my 0.02 Euro..
Re:So naive (Score:3)
The point was that had Napster located itself in Andorra, to take an A, the U.S. government would *not* have been within their legal rights to shut down the servers. In fact, shutting down servers in a foreign country without local governmental permission could quite easily be viewed as an act of war.
As to Cuba - the penalty isn't for trading with Cuba. It's for importing Cuban goods into the United States. It's also illegal to go there, if you are a US citizen. However, if you organize a trade route between Canada (which has no embargo) and Cuba, without your goods ever setting foot in the US, without Americans visiting Cuba, it is perfectly legal.
So please, don't be so naive.
Re:Why it Exists (Score:3)
Copyright should ensure that hard work is rewarded. If everything an individual/company did was up for grabs companies would spend more time investing in uncopyable software/products and less time inventing new and wonderous toys for us to play with.
Imagine what it'd be like is every piece of commercial software came with a device to allow access to the software? Some kind of optical de-scrambler (anyone remember Elite on the Speccy?). Or a device you had to connect to USB/some other port?
It'd cost us a lot more in the end. Movies costing millions of $s (which are occasionally good) wouldn't get made (imagine life with no 5th Element or Matrix if you dare).
Maybe music would benefit without the controlling megacorps and maybe we'd get used to the lack of huge mane bands (U2, Mariah or whoever).
Maybe other areas would also benefit from a lack of protection but I doubt we'd end up with certain high quality products. Open source only stands proud in the light of companies like M$, Sun and others IMHO.
Anyway, without copyright protection we wouldn't have enough articles posted to /. to pass the day... we might even end up doing some work :-)
Iain
Information wants to be Free (Score:4)
Copyright worked for short time, anyway (Score:2)
Re:Quran And bible (Score:2)
I'm not as sure of the situation with the Quran, but an individual translation of the Bible can be, (and many are) copyrighted. This is to prevent unscruplous people removing the bits they don't like, or adding bits, and passing the result off as the real thing
The NET Bible [bible.org]has pretty lax usage restrictions, I think.
Gerv
Sealand? (Score:4)
Patenet vs. Copyright (Score:3)
Patents are much, much worse. Software patents enable Compuserve, for example, to patent a compression algorithm or a program that reads or writes a specific file format. Once such a patent is granted, it is illegal for me to write a program that uses that compression, or reads or writes data compatible with that format - no matter how I implement it.
The fun part is what people patent: Windows, pull down menus, command-line interfaces, GIFs (you've heard about the infamous GIF patent, of course!), one-click shopping, word processors that can right align text, you name it, the US Patent Office will grant it to you. I honestly don't think they even read them anymore. And if someone from the USPO wants to show up and self-righteously say "Oh yes we do read them" then... my God, that's even worse.
The reason you can tell the EU is going to have software patents is because their argument - that the USPO is the problem, not software patents themselves - is patently false. An obvious placation.
In a world with software patents, every programmer is likely to violate hundreds of patents throughout their career. There is no way they can know which, since they cannot read and remember the entire patent base, no matter how well-maintained. Every program is a ticking time bomb of patent litigation, as you never know when someone might turn up and say, "Hey! My grandfather patented that in 1986! That'll be 70% of your gross please, or get ready to spend $100-300 thousand defending yourself in court!"
Enough said.
Members of WIPO (Score:4)
You may say I'm a dreamer... (Score:2)
No, dead people can't sing.
They do tend to hum, though.
Re:Remove the ancient laws, or at least update'em. (Score:3)
Don't get me started on this. Your offspring should start out the same way as everybody else. It makes me puke, when rich people, who has been rich for generations, goes ahead and brings the fortune to the nextgen, and the nextgen, and so forth.
Everybody should have to earn their riches. Some people WILL of course gain something by their parrents being rich - but it should not be the standard. I would recomend reading the October edition of The Ethical Spectacle [spectacle.org] for a more elaborate view on this.
Natrual? Yes! Just like trying to leech of others, they way you want it.
I do not want to "leech of others" - I want to be able to use already publicated ways of doing things. If I know how to make a certain algorithm, I should be able to use it in my software - no matter who has "patented" it. If I know how to make a cool mousetrap, I should be able to make it - and produce it - without having to vade through the thousands of patented ways of killing a mouse in a trap.
I don't *care* if someone invented it before me. I want to be able to reinvent, and use the things I reinvent, without having to wait for some stupid patent to expire.
--
/. effect (Score:3)
-henrik
Re:Copyright is *essential* (Score:5)
<SARCASM>
I'm so glad we have copyright, you don't want communist-lackeys like Leonardo creating things, or Mozart, or Bach, we need the truly great products of a copyright and profit driven art, would we have what we have today if it wasn't for copyright? Britney Spears, Christine Aguillera, Boyzone, 5ive?
What high-art copyright provides...
</SARCASM>
The difference would be twofold, (1) The quantity of stuff produced would go down, true, because only the people who truly wanted to do something would do it, and (2) Since they are usually the people who have the actual talent, the quality would go up.
You might not like classical music, or Shakespeare, or any of the other people that produced stuff before copyright was invented, but I don't reckon people will know who Britney Spears is in a thousand years...
Re:IP in the world... (Score:2)
> like everyone else because the Worlds biggest
> economic titan - the USA - will set the Rule which is
> "You will obey me".
Checked the figures on the US and EU economies? GDP (according to http://www.pref.miyagi.jp/toukei/profile/05_indus
USA: 949,124 billion Yen, 26.6 % of world total
EU: 978,648 billion Yen, 27.4 % of world total
I don't buy it. (Score:2)
__anybody__ using your work for their benefit without your permission? I would gag if any bozo could use, say, The Smashing Pumpkins music in a Levi's ad. Without copyright law, they'd have no recourse. Is this right or wrong?
Copyright law is needed. I don't buy the "information wants to be free" argument. Information should not be free for me to do with what I want. Just because I've got a copy of The Smashing Pumpkins' Gish album does not mean I have the right to distribute it and make money out of it without The Smashing Pumpkins' permission. I believe in this vehemently.
With sensible copyright laws, the only people losing out are the actual pirates and people just intrested in making money out of other people's work. I'm not arguing for the current USA copyright laws. I'm arguing for the artists right to choose. And the companys right to choose. Just because the way that IP is going is bad, in a bad, evil way, does not mean that the concept of owning information is bad. The backlash against copyright is nothing more than USA college kids being miffed at not being able to use Napster. There's little substance in the argument, imho.
No copyright, no work (Score:3)
I can spend 30 hours a week spare time, on top of the 45 hour workweek I have. If this project is ever a success, I would like some return of my time investments.
At this moment, I still have a choice of doing this propriaty or Open Source, yet, I still have to decide this.
When there are no copyright laws, it means my efforts are worthless, it means a different world, it means an accedemic world - everybody has the right to peek into my code, whether I want this or not. An accedemic world could mean that a new idea has to survive a generation of the elite establishment, it gets debunked on cosmetical grounds (can't search on this, button that does not work, made a grammar mistake there...) instead of being appreciated by the people who are actually going to work with the product.
With copyright laws, it is still interesting for me to develop the product. I still have a choice between propriaty and Open Source, and yes, to be honest, I'm also doing the product to gain financial benefit from.
The way all the copyright stories came into the news is not because the copyright phenomina is a bad thing, it is used as a tool to get total control. Everybody knows that it is all cheap investment and high profits what the record and movie industry are doing - you don't have to be a musician anymore to become a popstar. This all makes me sick.
In my opinion, copyright laws are okay, but they should illegalise copyright abuse!
Getting back at the story, putting up a Napster server in an 'A' country, and getting an incredible user-base, would invoke a high political lobby activity in that country by the people who care. The RIAA would sell their soul to get that darn thing shut.
Re:Remove the ancient laws, or at least update'em. (Score:3)
So what should happen to the wealth? Should it go to the government? To the "poor" or "deserving" (whoever they are)? Should the accomplishments of a life be destroyed on that person's death?
It's the right of a creator or wealth to dispose of his or her property as they see fit - if this means leaving it to their offspring, then that's their choice, not the government's, and certainly not yours.
If I know how to make a certain algorithm, I should be able to use it in my software
In what way is that not leeching? You're using someone else's original thoughts without their permission. It's no different from stealing electricity from the power company, time from the phone company, or any other theft of a service.
In mediæval time, scholars would study and create in secret, and burn their notes rather than let the Church steal their knowledge. You'd plunge us back into a world like that.
Re:Information wants to be Free (Score:2)
What utter nonsense. Where do you suppose information comes from in the first place? It's produced by expensive (scarce & overworked) people using expensive (difficult to manufacture) equipment. It is typical of /. to assume that all worthwhile information is produced purely for the pleasure of the producers. For example, while pure science may be the motivation of experimental physicists, someone's still got to write a cheque for a billion dollars for a new supercollider.
So here's a question, how many people in the world make their living purely though Open Source? What percentage of the overall user population is that? If you can't answer that off the top of your head, then information is *not* free :0)
copyright has another purpose (Score:5)
This is any easy one not to see because we're already embedded in it, but the whole notion of copyright originates with printers and booksellers (17th century) who faced huge (we're talking rampant) amounts of piracy. It wasn't always true that you could assume that the book you were holding was in fact written by the author it says, or that the publisher on the cover really did publish it, or that the contents weren't stolen from somebody else. Which means some serious problems when you're a natural philosopher trying publish your ideas about laws of motion or the existence of a vacuum and there's ten unauthorized and incorrect copies of your work floating around with your name on it! By using a system of copy rights, publishers (to anachronize things for a moment) could govern the books being printed, try to prevent piracy, and create some credibility for what was being printed. Their motive was, of course, related to profit, as we are today, but that doesn't change to problem.
(This is part of Adrian Johns' argument in "The Nature of the Book", UChicago Press, 1998)
In any case, imagine what would happen if suddenly there was no copyright today: how could you be sure that you were listening to the actual London Symphony, (or Bubble-head Spears, for that matter), and that somebody didn't put that name on some junk instead. Or what if you didn't know that your copy of Linux was in fact a copy right from the kernel team, and not joe-blow loading it with a backdoor or a trojan? You can't expect everybody to read the source and make sure, so we have to expect some measure of credibility when we purchase or otherwise obtain a copy of something of creative value.
Re:Remove the ancient laws, or at least update'em. (Score:5)
Regarding patents, the situation should be (and as far as I understand, it is in the US, with the exception of the NSA) that once a patent is filed it is publically accessible. That knowledge is no longer hidden. A trade secret and a patent are mutually exclusive.
I strongly believe that patents are still a good thing, but that the laws need to change to be relevant to modern times. Maybe a patent should last for 3 to 5 years - certainly enough time to get a competitive advantage. Also, if a patent holder does not use the patent constructively within one year (or show that the patent is part of an ongoing development within that year) then the holder must be forced to license the patent to one or more other parties, at a reasonable price.
Copyright is a more difficult thing. If I am an author, how can I expect to survive if I may sell only one copy of the book? As an author I don't have access to the resources of publishing companies, so the first publishing house to buy my book sells lots of copies to lots of people, and I get nothing. Some authors already work on this system - but the publishing house must take the financial risk of playing the author up front, so the pay is low, and encourages pulp fiction. I'm sure we can do better in this world.
As a software programmer, I can't even get a lump sum payment out of a publishing house. I sell one copy of my software, and it gets posted to a download site, and that's my $20 income for the year. No-one is going to pay me for a public appearance to autograph the software. And I certainly can't go to a concert. So what exactly must I do ...?
Some people think that a service industry is the answer. But its not. There is a huge market for utility applications - a market that does not require a lot of support or service, but requires working utilities. If you release a single good bug-free product, that's it - no more income for you. So either you have to loan your software (which you can't do, because there is no copyright) or you have to write buggy software to ensure that you get paid again.
On the music artist issue - how are you going to AFFORD your first concert? You didn't make any money from the music, remember? Also, in your haste to screw over all authors and software programmers, you seem to have also screwed over your loyal fans ... because they are the only ones who will pay for your music (you admit it)!
Copyright is still (and most likely always will be) required. But copyright must be carefully balanced against fair use. No-one should be allowed to copy a copyright work in its entirity - they must obtain one from the author. After that, however, the author should lose rights to that copy - it can be pressed, prodded, ripped apart, put back together, resold, whatever.
Re:The Arabs will fold soon enough (Score:2)
-- flossie
http [2130706433] telnet [017700000001]
Duration is the problem.... (Score:3)
Moving on to Patents, patents protect development of drugs where of the 20 year patent span, perhaps 10 of those is spent seeking approval and in tests. 20 years is probably about right here too, although I'd like to hear from someone in the pharmaceutical business for his opinion.
In the fields of machinery, computer development and especially in software, I have a feeling 20 years is way too long. Quite frankly if you can't recoup your investment in 5 years for a software patent, I'd expect your idea to be out of date anyway. I think a 5 year head start in software is more than enough. Similarly mechanical progress is much more rapid nowadays, and I suspect a 10 year patent would be plenty.
IMO, all the timespans I suggested would be adequate to encourage ideas, yet would also get those ideas out into the public domain, which was I believe one of the main stated ideas behind patents and copyright.
No copyright, lots of work (Score:2)
However, while the vast majority of the software being *created* does not depend on copyrights, the majority of software being *used* does depend on software. This is because the majority of consumers use mass produced shrink-wrapped software.
Thus, if you want to advocate copyrights, it should (ironically) not be for the sake of the creators, but for the sake of the consumers. The free software world have yet to prove that it can produce software (through other rewqrds than copyright) to fulfill the needs of the mass market, allthough it is getting closer with products like Linux, KDE, OpenOffice and Mozilla.
Re:Copyright is *essential* (Score:2)
The first, for example, is the requirement for expression to be tangible and fixed. They have to do that to make the law even vaguely implementable, but it immediately unbalances it, because it means that to get credit for your "intellectual property", you have to get it instantiated in a way that's physical rather than intellectual! Since the capitalist distribution system controls the physical resources necessary to do that, people who can't afford to create fixed expression can't ever be protected by copyright no matter how many fantastic expressions they might create. A homeless guy who hums a tune to himself and a pop singer who plays the tune on a guitar to millions have both done the same creative work in thinking of the tune (once you've throught of the tune, playing it on a guitar doesn't need any extra creativity), yet one's work is rewarded by gaining ownership of IP and the other is not.
A similar one is the parallel development law - now not only must it be fixed, but you have to make sure that lots of people have heard/seen your expression, otherwise they can recreate it and claim parallel development. This means that marketable works are more easily copyrighted than non-marketable ones because the marketable ones can be more easily distributed on the market, even though it may take just as much creative work to come up with a non-marketable expression as a marketable one.
The result of that is that the stated aim of Copyright mentioned in the message - enabling people to earn a living by producing creative expression, and so enabling them to concentrate on doing so and produce better expressions - is negated, because to even get a copyright they have to produce a first expression that's attractive enough to be marketed. (If it's not attractive enough to be marketed, nobody will ever hear it and it can be redeveloped in parallel.)
But if they could do that, then they were ALREADY capable of producing good creative work without needing copyright to get them a living, and the law is redundant; if they cannot do that, then they never get a copyright because they never get anything TO copyright, so the law does nothing to get them a living.
The DMCA is really a clear admission of the other problem with copyright law. It strikes me as being an acceptance of the fact that copyright is very hard to enforce, and if it was enforced it would only result in the prosecution of a huge number of citizens who had committed no other crime and who were otherwise productive and useful to society. Hence, they have to fudge it by trying to make it impossible to commit.
How would the DMCA, I wonder, deal with mutually exclusive copy protections? Ie, a situation between two protection algorithms where applying one protection breaks the other, and vice versa? Both have substantial noninfringing uses (giving protection), so the devices shouldn't be illegal, but neither could resist the other's breaking attempts, because doing so would also be breaking the protection the other would provide, and hence violating the DMCA.
Re:Remove the ancient laws, or at least update'em. (Score:2)
Take the issue of AIDS-medicine for instance. A norwegian medical company (whose name escapes me for the moment) spent enormous amounts of money on research to find a decent medicine to suppress the development of HIV into AIDS, but the actual medicine itself is relatively cheap. If they didn't get a patent on the medicine any Tom, Dick and Harry could create this medicine for production-cost alone, while the innovators would have to pay the whole cost of research.
Now, I don't think anyone would disagree that we want the medicine spread as much as possible, as cheaply as possible. But the point here is that if the company knew in advance that once they had spent millions on developing this medicine anyone would be able to produce it cheaply, then they simply wouldn't have spent those money on research, as the whole project would have cost them tremendous amounts of money. And corporations exist to make money. If they don't, they go bust.
So, conclusion: I don't particularily like copyright-laws, but if we remove them completely it will reduce innovation from large corporations, and in the long run this is not something we'll want.
Not signing Berne conv != no IP laws (Score:2)
About Cuba (Score:2)
Its a bit worse than that.
A (non-US) company that does business with Cuba may not eport to the US!
Basically, the US gov says: Pick your choise, trade with Cuba XOR trade with us.
Kind of the same attitude Bejing has towards Taiwan.
(And of course this has only strengthened the Castro regime. Without a strong external enemy, the cubans would focus on domestic issues)
There would still be contract law (Score:2)
Re:Remove the ancient laws, or at least update'em. (Score:2)
You'd also need to put copyright back to a Human timescale rather than a corporate one. i.e. a maximum of 20 years for things like books and films and considerably less for software and music.
Re:I don't buy it. (Score:2)
Then ask the same artist if they had ever sung or played a "cover version" and if they had got explicit permission from the original artist...>
Re:Reason copyright extends after death. (Score:2)
Re:Remove the ancient laws, or at least update'em. (Score:2)
It isnt so much inherited wealth per se thats the problem, rather inherited vast wealth. Ideally no one should be allowed to get rich, because vast amounts of money means lots of power, and power always corrupts.
I am not saying that no one should be allowed to get compensated for skill and/or much hard work, just that there should be a ceiling. Of course someone who works 60 hours a week deserves more pay than someone else who works 30 (all other things being equal), and of course someone with a long expensive eduacation deserves more per hour than someone without it. Rare talent or skill should also be rewarded, but there must be a limit.
It is debatable just where the ceiling should lie, but a possibility might be 5 or 10 times the average income or fortune, whatever is reached first. Once this limit is reached everything, 100% exceeding the ceiling is taxed away.
I know this will be abhorrent to Libertarians and Capitalists, who believe that the property right is the most sacred thing there is, and that it is a Human Right to be able to make heaps of money without doing any work (the money you already have "works"), but a society with huge differencies in wealth is not only morally repugnant, but inefficient as well (large numbers of people need to be employed as police and guards to protect the haves from the have-nots, when they could have been doing something more worthwhile instead).
/Dervak
Re:Duration is the problem.... (Score:2)
Indeed it is still plenty of time for a return on any investment. In many cases the relevent time is far far shorter, if a book, film, software, piece of music dosn't turn a profit within a year or so a commercial promoter is likely to abandon it.
Now copyright persists for about 70 years or so; this is wholly unreasonable.
What it does allow is someone or more likely some corporate entity, to continue make money from an old product rather than coming up with new works.
What has this place come to? (Score:2)
I honestly cannot understand how anyone could be so selfish as to say that it is not one's right to decide for themselves how the information they create is to be used.
If any one of you anti-copyright people has not spent at least several months of your free time working on something which you are giving away for free, then you have NO RIGHT to even argue about this. I expect anyone who responds to this post to start out by saying what it is that they have created.
Me? I've spent over a year working on a 3D game engine which is licensed under the LGPL.
All I can say is, if you don't like the way someone has licensed something, then just don't use their product. It just isn't right to say "I should be able to do whatever I want with this thing on which this person has spend months working." If it were not for them, the thing would not exist, and you certainly would not have it. So, if you want whatever it is that they have created, then give them your respect, damnit.
------
Re:So naive (Score:2)
This is incorrect. It is also illegal to export to Cuba, with the exception of certain strictly regulated items such as pharmaceuticals. As another reader pointed out, the Helms-Burton Act even imposes penalties on non-US companies who do business with Cuba.
-
If there was no copyright law (Score:2)
Re:Temp Laws (Score:2)
There are some medical conditions from which so few people suffer, that (after subtracting the lengthy FDA approval process from the statutory 17 year patent term) there is just no way to justify further research. While I think the ex post facto extension of copyright or patent terms we've seen in recent years is absurd, I do think it'd be a good idea for future patents on technology subject to regulatory approval have the expiry "clock" start with that approval, allowing the full 17 years to recoup the R&D.
DISCLAIMER: The Bride of Monster has Myasthenia Gravis, an "orphan disease". She has taken the same medication for decades, because nothing new has been developed. So I'm prejudiced? Maybe.
Re:The Pope? (Score:2)
Is that where Roman Catholic pets go for their rabies shots? Try 'Vatican.'
Thailand, 10 years ago. (Score:2)
Later, when a sembalance of copyright enforcement came about, people started actually making better software, as they could spend more effort on the software project and less on anti-piracy measures. I think that without those high-level changes, Thailand would never have had localised versions of windows or office (but that might not have been a bad thing in the long run!)
Without copyright laws, perhaps we'd still have 64K 4.77MHz 8088 cpus with instructions on how to write our own programs in BASIC and a tape drive to boot (or 160k floppy if we're lucky). For without the will to innovate (the premsis here is that programmers spend more on copy protection than on innovation) there would be little room for "pushing the envelope", but this is admittedly a rather farfetched leap of logic.
To get back to the point, it's not copyright laws that are wrong in themselves. I think it's perfectly alright to copyright a certain piece of work to repay the author for his "creative imput" (a term I got from a friend at the University of Manchester - better acknowledge this!) if he so chooses. It's also perfectly alright to create from the ground up the same software for free if someone so chooses to spend his time on such a project. But it's the abuse of this system for financial (or political) purposes that isn't nice. To paraphrase a comment on microsoft that having a monopoly isn't illegal, but abusing it is, one might say that having a software copyright system is not the cause of our woes, it's the abuse of that system that is.
Life Without Copyrights (Score:2)
Would be very different. Software would probably be customized to the point of the being unique to a particular application. I do not think the computer revolution would have happened. Remember, hardware accounted only for half of it. The more important half in terms of the way we function now as opposed to twenty years ago--geez am I really that old?--is the development of software that anyone could take out of a box and use. From the first killer app, the spread sheet, to the the most modern mathcad, software has increasingly been developed to solve universal problems. Prior to the PC revolution, most computer programs were written for a very specific purpose and for a very small audience. The company comptroller for instance. As a side note, I am not this old, but one of my first computer jobs at the end of college dealt with legacy code written in FORTRAN 66 and FORTRAN 77. Such software was not portable, not maintainable, and was not usable by the world at large. My older colleagues told me that all software was written that way. In the end, we had to scrap the code and rewrite it all based on specifications. What caused the software revolution that gave us real world software? That somethig was the copyright. Copyrights give the developer the incentive to develop universal--I use the term for want of a better one--software that anyone can use. With a copyright the developer recoups the cost and effort of developing complex software and can even make a profit. The open source movement in contrast is rebellion against abusive copyright enforcement, and monopolistic copyright holders. Amazingly the movement has gained momentum to the point that people are figuring out how to make money on code they essentially give away. But, without the ablity to copyright and charge users for the commodity of software, I think software would still be where it was twenty and more years ago.
The picture would be even more divergent for artists. Authors of the fiction we love to read, musicians, and others who create consumable works rely on copyrights to make a living. Without a copyright, an artist would have to rely on patrons or performances. While musicians can, and do make their living mainly off of performances, an author has not such option. The only way an author can make a living writing is to sell their works, or to acquire a patron. Since a it gives the artist a legal right to exclusive sell his or her work, a world without copyright in some sense would take us back a couple hundred years. At least I think it would. I honestly don't know how long the notion of a legal copyright has been with us. While big publishing and music companies have abused copyrights, copyrights are also what makes it possible for a person to be a full time author, make it easier to be a full time musician, or a full time film maker.
Re:Information wants to be Free (Score:3)
-_Quinn
Re:Remove the ancient laws, or at least update'em. (Score:2)
--
Re:I don't buy it. (Score:2)
Re:Copyright is *essential* (Score:3)
It's worth remembering that the great artists you mention all required wealthy patrons. So let's be clear - if you eliminate copyright laws, you require a system of patronage of individual artists by the wealthy, or support by the state/taxpayers. You think you don't like a world with proprietary sotwere? What about a world where all the most talented artists were on the payroll of the very wealthy? Do you think you would have anything resembling free expression in the arts?
Otherwise, the poster who said that _all_ artists would have to spend most of their time in other jobs to pay the rent is right. Copyright allows artists to focus on creating art and not have to worry about a day job. I think that any problems can be dealt with by ensuring strict time limits.
Re:Remove the ancient laws, or at least update'em. (Score:2)
Try reading the article I referred to in the ethical spectacle (you may have to dig a bit to find it, but it was in the october edition).
--
Why copyright exists (Score:2)
Ranting against copyright while not posting as an Anonymous Coward is hypocrisy.
Let us imagine a world without copyright:
Copyright dangles a carrot in front of you: "If I write this really good program that people like I will get praise and acceptance and money for my work." Do away with copyright and the only other motivation is a stick; produce this or else. This is a Yin and Yang world. There is an element of a stick under a copyright system: if I try to plagiarize something I get punished, and there is an element of a carrot in a non copyright system: "if the master likes me perhaps I'll get to eat"
In a world without copyright whoever is biggest and strongest gets to beat you into letting them put their name on any writing you produce. If you think corporations are abusive today wait until Guido and Company take over in the no copyright world.
Copyright is one of the cornerstones of modern technological society remove that cornerstone and everything collapses back to a pre capitalist feudal state. If you find the power that government and corporations wield against you oppressive in modern society imagine what they would be like in the stick motivating world with no copyright.
At least in today's world you have a right to any writing which you create. In a non copyright world you would have nothing of value to trade for sustenance other than your physical labor . Copyright is one of the things that lifted us out of the feudal world - get rid of it and we go right back to that era.
We've already tried a world without copyright - we rejected it because it didn't work worth a damn.
If there were no copyright laws... (Score:2)
It's really simple in at least terms of electronic media. Authors would take whatever means needed to protect their inventions from copying. All software would become heavily copy protected with dongles etc. In this age of the internet you would have to connect to a license server run by the software publisher. All music would be heavily encrypted using mechanisms like those in the now defunct DVD rental player. This of course would drive up the costs of software considerably. Software would be sold under strict contracts that make current licenses look like child's play.
In terms of books and so forth the situation would be very grim. The main reason copyright laws were estabilished was to protect authors works from being pirated by publishers. Without this mechanism we would have no commercial authors - people who write for a living. There would still be books published for academic and similar reasons, but you would not find the Neal Stephenson's and Steven King's on the bookshelf.
Soft money + George Bush + IP Law = Ground war (Score:2)
Ground war in Asia? Civil unrest in USA? Vietnam2 (or china1)?
FACT: Microsoft is now the fourth biggest soft money contributor in the USA.
yahoo article [yahoo.com]
Observation: With these close election politicians will be running scared for contributons to win the next round. Especially the next commander and chief.
Observation: People have knee jerk reactions and are offended at the idea that IP law is to slanted toward companies.
It's not hard to see where this could go.
I believe copyrite term should be shortened and contract law reformed. And I have written an editorial on the subject. [warcloud.net]
Copyright and the Constitution (Score:2)
The ones who wrote the Constituion viewed things like patents and copyrights not as goods in themselves, but as useful evils. If people are allowed to profit personally from their intellectual effort, then they will be able to spend more time involved in intellectual effort, rather than having to work some menial job in order to finance their work (or be already wealthy, as was the case with most scientists of the Renaissance).
They were well aware, as we should be today, that freedom of speech is fundamentally more important than copyright. Where the two conflict, freedom of speech should triumph.
As a side note, it may well be possible to prevent fraud without the use of copyright or patents. If I publish a book with Albert Einstein's name on it that describes physics as being magic provided by demons in terms of fundamentalist religious doctrine, it could be argued that I was committing fraud upon my consumers -- unless, of course, my name really was Albert Einstein...
HJ
Advocating the return of GunBoat Diplomacy? (Score:2)
The reality is that economic interests concerned have to be convinced that it is in their best interests otherwise you end up with the authorities (who, infact, author nothing but author-ize instead,) in country F rushing some kids bedroom and seizing property for a possible offense in country U.
The economic interests concerned are only concerned with their economic interests.
If you can come up with an economic argument (and screw everything and everybody else,) that can convince one of them to take a limited chance to see if there's a buck profit to be made on ten cents investment, you're in.
If you can't, it'll be settled the way it has traditionally settled right up to the end of last century.
Nineteenth century and prior wars were purely economic. From the Nepoleonic wars to the minor skirmishes of the Boxer rebellion and the Opium wars in the far east. The Boer, Zulu and a depressing litany of wholesale slaughter to encroach on marketing or resource territory.
The First World War was fought over the German Junker's marketing of their pigs to central and southern Europe. (Read The History of the Great War by Winston Churchill.)
The Second World War was fought over Axis econo-political control over an expanding territory. Since the planet wasn't expanding, we fought back.
Stalin's wholesale slaughter of the Ukranian Kulaks was committed in the name of agrarian reform.
The only purely idealogical war was the killing fields of Cambodia where almost a quarter of the population was murdered by their own children.
Fighting for piece is like fucking for chastity. Find another way. A concensual way.
Re:Duration is the problem.... (Score:2)
If the idea is out of date, the fact that the patent hasn't expired is irrelevant. Nobody is using the idea anyway. OTOH, if you have a software idea that is still important after 20 years, it sounds to me like it is a pretty damn good idea and you should still be getting the benefits of coming up with it.
Missed the Point (Score:2)
Regardless of which principality chooses to enforce copyrights, large corporate copyright holders have taken the initiative by employing "coded-in" architecture. Hence, traditional allowances that have kept the privelages of the copyright holder balanced with the public interest -- i.e. Fair Use-- may be hardwired out of the copyrighted product.
Take, for example, several MPEG layers currently in design. MPEG 21 (and I believe 4) comes with a nifty "Intellectual Property Management Layer" for "digital rights management."
Guess who's been busy championing this brand of fine-tuned copyright control?
Leonardo Chiariglione, executive director of the Secure Digital Music Initiative and a leader in the MPEG group, has been a main proponent of the MPEG-21 concept. SDMI is developing a generic architecture to handle security and digital rights management for Internet audio.
(from Electronic Engineering Times article [eoenabled.com])
I think Lawrence Lessig's book Code [oreillynet.com] (link to O'Reily review) clearly explains the consequences of allowing powerful, corporate copyright holders to create their own copyright policy through soft/hardware architecture.
Sincerely,
Vergil
Re:So naive (Score:2)
However the viewpoint that the US gets to hear is that of some powerful (they had the US government ignore international law for some months not long ago) people in Maimi. They (or their parents) were booted out of Cuba for some very good reasons...
The real reason for copyright law. (Score:2)
Copyright law is there to protect businesses from each other. How much does it hurt if one person doesn't pay for something? Especially if you only consider the intelectual property costs (i.e. we're not talking about someone stealing CD's, we're talking about someone "stealing" music). The cost is actually not that great especially if the "thief" had no intention of actually buying the product. However, imagine for a moment what would happen if someone could re-brand a product and sell it for themselves, legally? Without copyright law someone could start printing copies of the latest book by (insert your favorite author here) and sell them for whatever price they chose without ever giving a dime back to the author.
Copyright law is intended to protect the interests of the "artist", but the most serious concern is organized "theft", not individual theft. If you look at the biggest concerns currently in terms of software piracy and copyright violation, it's not individuals duping copies for their friends, it's organized re-selling of copyrighted materials, things like counterfeit software (complete with fake registration cards), pre-release black market movies, etc. This is of the most concern because A) by laying down cash for these items we know that the buyers of these items are exactly the people who would potentially pay for the real product (assuming the price differential is not too great), so this represents money that should have gone to the "artists" but did not, and B) sometimes people do not know that these products are "phony" (this is especially the case with counterfeit software). Without copyright law, this kind of thing would be legal. Even more worrisome is that someone could manufacture packaging and product that looked identical to the "true" product and buyers would have no way to tell which purchase would result in money going back to the original developers / artists.
I think we do need copyright protection. The question is how it is used and how it is enforced. After all, both Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds protect their software under copyright law (Bill Gates to make sure people pay for his software, Linus to make sure people don't pretend his software is their's and charge too much money for it).
Re:Temp Laws (Score:3)
In the interest of fairness I think all patents ans copyrights ought to begin at the point of approval. Doing otherwise would only punish consumers for the inefficiencies of bureaucracy. The way most corporations calculate return on investment any lag time between the start of research and the time a product actually makes money will be reflected in its cost. If a company invests a hundred million dollars in something that can get to market in five years they will want to get back five years worth of the opportunity cost of spending that money elsewhere. If the FDA ties things up for a couple of years it will just force the company to increase its price.
The purpose of all of this is to encourage investment through reasonable protection while keeping some semblance of competition. The hard part is striking a good balance between the two.
Copyright doesn't exist to restrict copying... (Score:2)
I don't know at what point, but somebody decided that the whole issue was actually making copies, not protecting IP. Which is interesting because I do not see how actually copying a work causes any infringement upon IP rights. If you make a duplicate, that duplicate still bears all of the branding of hte original creator - and makes it even less likely for you to be able to say "I invented/created this".
Or at least that's what I thought until I read Webster's definition of the word copyright. Hmmm... I guess They got to Webster first. :-) But the definition is kind of interesting...
copyright \Cop"y*right\, n. The right of an author or his assignee, under statute, to print and publish his literary or artistic work, exclusively of all other persons. This right may be had in maps, charts, engravings, plays, and musical compositions, as well as in books.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
How could this definition apply back in the days before it was even possible to "distribute" a piece of work like we can today? Can this still be interpreted such that distribution rights matter when it comes to people trying to literally steal and redistribute for the purpose of some sort of personal gain?
Call me crazy, but if my interpretation is correct, MP3's don't do not currently do this. Neither does DeCSS. Hmmm... Just my thoughts.
We already have nations w/o copyright. Taiwan? (Score:4)
However, in Taiwan, Son May is a licensed local business. They employ people, pay taxes, pay business license fees, sponsor local kids sports groups, etc. From a local point of view, they are not illegitimate at all. Copyright law is a Western invention and then we have the gall to decree our invented concept "morally correct" and call names at Taiwan? Many other nations consider the US attitude on guns or wealth accumulation a far worse behavior. Our women don't cover their faces like in many Arab nations. Should we change and conform to meet ideals of other people in other nations?
I see no difference here.
And you know what, the world seems to be getting along just fine, and Son May sells its products all over the world without "authorities" seeming to care at all. Walk into any asian video/music store, or a comic shop that deals in japanese anime. At least half will stock Son May products. And this is in the US.
Does the US seem to care? Nope. Who's getting hurt? Answer, no one. What's our response? Hey! Taiwan is one of out "most favored nations".
lowest common denominator (Score:2)
Which everybody else are you talking about? Are you only going to give your kid one meal a day four times a week so he can be just like the average kid? Are you not going to teach him to read since most everybody else is illiterate, too?
I'd wager not. You'll probably give your kid nice clothes so they don't freeze in the winter and good food so they aren't malnourished and you'll send them to school. So obviously you aren't comparing them to the world population at large, but rather to some smaller, more select group of "peers". But why is are the peer criteria you selected the correct ones?
If I know how to make a certain algorithm, I should be able to use it in my software...
But the only reason you know about this algorithm is because of someone else. How is that different from monetary inheritance? If you figure out the algorithm all on your own then, sure, you can use it. But you haven't. You just "inherited" the knowledge of the algorithm. Why do you make a distinction between monetary inheritance and intellectual inheritance? If I have to start at ground zero to gain my money why don't you have to start at ground zero to gain knowledge?
If you want to work for a King... (Score:2)
Researching Leonardo's source of income....
Re:I don't think you're seeing the big picture her (Score:2)
Re:Information wants to be Free (Score:2)
What does that have to do with the expense of copying the information?
Re:Remove the ancient laws, or at least update'em. (Score:4)
Indeed it would. You might want to carefully consider what the consequences would be for the consumer.
I write closed-source software for a living. A lot of this (over half) is custom work, where the customer simply pays in direct proportion to the time I spend working. That is good and fair, and such a business practice can survive without copyrights. No problem there.
The other part of my job is working on products that we sell over and over. You think I should still only be paid once for making a modification/addition to these products? Fair enough. But when we have a product that gets sold to u users, and need to bill d dollars to make a profit, that means that we only need to charge each user d/u. If u is large, then it is cheap. Sometimes it's darn close to free.
If you get rid of copyrights, then that pretty much kills the concept of a software product, and that means that people will not be able to get software for d/u cost. Instead, they will either have to directly pay d to get the software written, or they will pay 0 and just hope that someone else gets around to doing it or paying for it. (Or maybe you think they will cooperate and pool resources or use street performer protocol or whatever, which are good ideas, but I'm sceptical that people will really do that.)
Now, maybe that's good and maybe that's bad. (Personally, I think it would hurt me in the short term, since there would be a period of unemployment for me in the lag period while society adjusts to the idea of paying for labor instead of products. Long term, I think I like it.)
I don't think society is ready for this, though. There are a number of clues, but I'll just mention one for now (I'll list a few others if you're interested): The recent US election tells me so, since almost everyone voted for Democrats, Republicans, or Greens. Libertarians didn't do well, and they are the ones with the vision of a society where everyone decides for themselves what to pay for and what not to. The more socialist platforms are based on amortizing costs across the population involuntarily. And they are the ones that have been winning, so I don't think a services-instead-of-product economy is what the masses want.
Getting rid of copyrights just ain't gonna happen without some very massive changes in the population's way of thinking.
---
Re:Information wants to be Free (Score:2)
But the cost to acquire that information (1 million dollars in this example) has not changed, and had to come from somewhere. You are assuming that someone, somewhere, valued that information at one million dollars, and that once they have that information, they don't care if anyone else has access to it.
This is a flawed assumption, if only because by controlling that information - via copyright - and selling it to other interested parties, the original investor in the information can recoup some of their expenses. This chance to recoup expenses allows for more expensive projects (movies, software, CDs, books) to be produced with the expectation that there will be enough general appeal to allow the project to break even or (heaven forbid) actually make a profit for the original investors. In return for asuming the risk of the project up front, the original investors are allowed to reap the rewards if the project is successful; likewise, they pay the price and loose their investment if the project is not successful.
In order to produce any copyrighted work, someone invested something (time, effort, materials, money) up front. The honest truth of the matter is that many times, this investment isn't made because of some unconditional love for the work they are producing; it's made with the expectation that there will be some potential for gaining more than what was invested. [1] Remove that potential for gain, and you remove much of the motivation to create the types of works that fall under copyright.
[1] Even open source works this way. You invest a little of your time improving or creating something, with the expectation that others will do the same... if that doesn't happen, your investment (time, effort) has effectively been risked, and lost. If it does happen, your investment is returned, and you profit (via improved software.)
Re:Remove the ancient laws, or at least update'em. (Score:2)
--
Re:So naive (Score:3)
To be fair, I used this as an example without knowing all of the details involved. My understanding of the situation with cuba, based on reading a magazine article about it, is that the concept of "trading with the enemy" is the foundation of the law against it. That it is not illegal to go to cuba, only illegal to spend any money there as strange as that sounds.
The US has had a highly effective trade embargo against Cuba since Kennedy was president. Go there and you will find cars from the 1950's which people somehow miraculously keep running, probably though black market parts. But you'll find no new cars and I expect the situation is similar for other US produced goods as well. I suspect that Japan doesn't trade with Cuba because we would quickly raise our own tarriffs if they did, which explains why there aren't any new cars from that island country there either.
Personally, I think the whole business with Cuba is quite silly today. There is no missle crisis, there is no Soviet Union to prop them up. If we had half an excuse to, we could overrun them almost overnight. By refusing to trade with them, we're only hurting the Cuban pepople themselves, some of whom desperately try to flee to the US. It's a bad situation all around.
Lee Reynolds
Re:So naive (Score:2)
Lee Reynolds
Re:No copyright, lots of work (Score:2)
But even programmers in a solutions development shop depend on copyright because more often than not, they are using some form of copyrighted software: from app servers like Weblogic to databases like Oracle. It is costly and dangerous to create everything from scratch.
Re:There is no copyright now... (Score:2)
Re:Then things would be fine. (Score:2)
Re:Remove the ancient laws, or at least update'em. (Score:2)
Licenses do not derive from copyright law (Score:2)
Tossing out copyright law will do nothing to change the MS EULA or other proprietary licenses. The problem is that the general public thinks all of this stuff is operating under copyright law, while the industry is operating under a mutant contract law. What needs to be done is either A) base licenses on copyright law, or B) make these licenses explicit contracts instead of a unilateral declaration that the user has entered an agreement.
My personal view is that copyright law should be eliminated *concurrently* with a fix in contract law. A consumer needs to explicitly agree to a software license and convey this acceptance to the licensor in all cases that would remove a legal right of the consumer. In all other forms of contracts, this is done by means of a signature. Although this seems unworkable, it is not. It protects the consumer from entering into binding contracts of which they are not aware. It also forces the industry into using means of IP protection that do not rely upon gun-toting police (DeCSS).
For most consumer software packages, encryption and/or registration keys will work. For larger commercial works, the sales force may need to get customer signatures, just as they do when selling support contracts.
At the same time, to play my own adversary, I do recognize that "classic" copyright law adequately performed the role of an abbreviated and standard implicit contract for two centuries. But at the minimum the DMCA and UCITA have to go.
Re:Devil's Advocate here... (Score:2)
So what's to prevent big concert promoters from making millions off of your music, while your own MP3.com sales earn you only enough to rent out the VFW hall? Some people would call this exploitation, while others would say it's what you get for abandoning your work.
I can think of several solutions. One of them is: shop your music around to producers or agents under a NDA. When a sale is made, specify in the contract that the producer will book only concerts that gain you a percentage.
If copyright went away, the producers would create a standard contract (probably several) that all producers would be party to. If one of these industry agreements would be to give the author a 10% take on concerts, then any concert promoter that had signed off on that contract could not stiff you. And a shady concert promoter who did not sign up with any standard industry agreement would soon be blackballed (as Shoreline Ampitheatre will only accept concerts under the ASCAP agreement, for instance). This is a form of blackballing, and as such it will be very controversial. But its no different than Free Software users and developers universally ostracising LinuxOne.
Re:What has this place come to? (Score:2)
Amen brother!
I would probably fall on the side of "you anti-copyright people", but being against pubic government protection of IP does not mean that I am against private means of protection. After all, if the public trespass laws went away, you wouldn't sigh and pull down all your fences, would you? No, you'd probably start building them higher!
I have spent a year on a software project that I am giving away for gratis. I consider it my "own" property, and sharing it with the world doesn't make it any less mine. If I let all the neighborhood children play on my front lawn, it doesn't mean that the lawn is no longer mine. But even placing my software under the ultra-free BSD license, I still get letters from people bitching about it. A member of GNU wrote and warned me that people would exploit my work if I didn't change my license (I almost put it under the public domain as a counter-argument).
I am not sharing my work because I have to, or should have to, or because it will make me morally superior, or to free my users (as if they were slaves before), or any such thing. I am sharing my work because I want to.
Re:What has this place come to? (Score:2)
And that's how it should be. :)
Letting people defend their own IP sounds like a good idea in theory, but I wonder about how practical it would be. For example, the only way to prevent people from recording a piece of music would be to lock down the music player all the way to the speakers, which is totally unreasonable, not to mention something that Slashdotters frequently speak out against. You can bet that you would not be allowed to play that music on Linux. After all, redirecting /dev/dsp to a raw WAV file is hardly a challenge.
It's sort of like Libertarianism. I like the idea, but there's no way in hell that it will work in practice. (see this [kuro5hin.org] comment for my take on that.)
I certainly don't want the goverment to have anything to do with my pubic area, either. :)
------
I think copyright should be stopped... (Score:2)
--
Re:Sealand? (Score:2)
What you'll find is that it will mainly end up benefitting shifty corporations and individuals that want to avoid paying their fair share of taxes or want to hide unwholesome sources of income. Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, for one example, almost completely avoids paying any tax whatsoever, mainly by using offshore tax havens. It has paid no British corporation tax in the last 11 years, despite making profits of 2 billion dollars.
However, these sorts of havens exist only to the extent that they are tolerated by governments of states with major economies. After all, any advantage that a company receives from such havens can be shut down by the countries they do business in, through embargo. You can be sure that if the volume of transactions channeled through havens gets too large, and governments so choose, the Rupert Murdochs of the world will have to choose one or the other: do business in the Cayman Islands, or do business in the US or Europe.
Some reading:
The Observer (UK) [observer.co.uk], April 2, 2000, Pg. 1:
"Trouble in paradise: Michael Ashcroft has one. So have Rupert Murdoch and Richard Branson. In fact, no self-respecting plutocrat is without an offshore tax haven. But, as John Sweeney reports from the Turks and Caicos Islands, these financial refuges are finally under threat"
The Observer (UK), March 28, 1999, P. 23
Re:What has this place come to? (Score:2)
Your goal should not be to prevent recording your music. After all, even under current copyright law you have the legal right to make archival copies of your legally acquired music. Instead, you should be thinking about how to protect against unwanted mass distributions.
Persuasion, ostracism and "blackballing" can go a long ways in protecting your property in a voluntary manner. Artists don't do business with studios that don't protect their interests. Studios don't do interest with distributors that don't protect their artists' interests. And distributors don't do business with stores that carry bootlegs. Then Big Bob's Bootleg Bonanza will be stuck selling used CDs. Consider it a reverse cartel. The first step is for artists not to sign contracts they disagree with.
It's not going to happen overnight. And with some people (RIAA) it's not going to happen for a long time. But you at least have to start. So start with some small groups of artists and distributors. When their cash crop leaves for the mom-and-pop studios, the big boys will pay attention and get their act together.
Re:Remove the ancient laws, or at least update'em. (Score:2)
Yeah, and we all know Apache is really just cat with a few tweaks here and there.
Re:Duration is the problem.... (Score:2)
I do not dispute that the originator of the idea should have a substantial lead to market in return for making his idea public, but that lead should not be so substantial that others cannot pick up the ball and run with it if they are able to improve on the idea. The primary stated purpose of patents is to encourage progress, not necessarily to line the developers pocket; patents accept that the latter is necessary to achieve the former, but IMO a 5 year lead would be more than adequate. Anyway if you only had a five year advantage you would have a much bigger incentive to get & corner the market fast! before anyone else could run with your idea.
Re:No copyright, lots of work (Score:2)
True. But even in the worst case[1], i.e. no free software alternatives, that would just mean *more* work to programmers who would have to replace the shrink-wrapped software with ad-hoc solutions.
Again, the argument for copyright should not be to protect the creators (programmers), but the consumers (in this case, the people hiring the programmers).
--
[1] The worst case is less likely than for end-user software, as there is more free software directed towards solution providers (programers) than towards end users. In many cases , the free software is even the current market leader (like gcc for the embedded programming market).