Re:Let's tear the whole thing up. (Score 1)

.

My immediate, instinctual position on copyright is: How Stupid. It is a fixed principle that unenforceable law is bad law; it does not deter, but it leaves in its wake disrespect for the Law in general.

Copyright may have made sense when the dominant medium was print and presses were moderately expensive. Few owned a press, and a publisher who violated copyright could reasonably be discovered and penalized. Now that millions have the equivalent of a (cheesy) printing press and teevee station, enforcement -- even if desirable -- can never be strict. At best, there can only be draconian examples made.

Then, there is the philosophical argument. Why should anyone, even the originator, be allowed to profit from the circulation of an idea and its expression? After all he has come to mean to us, doesn't M*cky belong to us all? If Shakespeare were alive today, would we permit him to monopolize the distribution of his works?

On the other hand, we do want to reward creators of good art, music, and software. The way we reward people is by paying them cash. So shouldn't the author of any work get paid every time somebody uses/views/listens to it?

OK! Let's tear the whole thing up.

In the Bad Old Days, when we wrote code, we only hoped that somebody, someday, somewhere, would take a piece of it and use it again. We competed for prestige; there was no dream of endless royalties. Of course, we got salaries (or at least hourlies) for writing the stuff in the first place. It was all so custom that our employers never thought to make a buck reselling any of it.

I'd like to see a return to this standard. Let's forget about charging money for ideas and their expressions. You can charge for printing a book, burning a disk, or sitting onstage and sawing away at a fiddle. You can't charge for the words, the bits, or the notes.

Most people are motivated to create "intellectual property" by the hope of making money. Most people -- I dare say the same people -- are untalented hacks. Their words are leaden, their code buggy, their music mindless noise. Take away the profit incentive, and at least some of those authors will go away and become lawyers and MBAs.

There will still be a great deal of bad art, but at least we won't be encouraging it by giving the creators money. Nor will we be keeping an army of leeches fat -- record execs and such. They will have to find something else to parasite, if there is no profit in Art.

Talented people will always create; for them, creation is a compulsion, a furious drive, a tornado of the soul. For many artists -- artists in all disciplines -- good and bad -- art is life. Chain them in a dungeon and toss the key; they will scratch the mouldering bricks. There is no need to pay them.

On the other hand, we'd rather not have starving artists. Too often, they die when they run out of food. Or they are unable to purchase simple materials of decent quality. (Many Old Masters used oils and varnishes of such poor quality that their paintings are now falling apart.)

So, we see, we have to give these angelic fools a basic living, a decent dole, to keep their ribs from showing through, to keep their garrets heated through the winter. And since we refuse to allow the market to discriminate between bad and good Art, we have to give this to everybody.

Whoops! See how a simple debate about copyright turns into Universal Socialism and Welfare? But if we don't pay the artists, then we have to give them the Basic Dole; and if we do that, we have to give it to anybody who asks for it -- many people fancy themselves artists.

But there really is no good reason for anybody to work, who does not want to do so. The necessities of life can be created freely by the machines; such human labor as remains will be done anyway, by those who enjoy it. I say necessities -- food, clothing, shelter. (That last comes with a proviso, that while there is plenty of room on Earth, we're not making any more of it. But that's another story...)

Most labor today is consumed not by manufacturing necessities, but by servicing luxuries. The wealthy consume great quantities of such labor, and if Basic Dole came to all, then rich folks would have to polish their own boots, wash their own dishes, and wait for the (automatic) trains along with everybody else. In fact, it's hard to see how anybody could become rich, or stay that way. I suppose people who really wanted money could slave away for it, so they could hire others to slave away for them on their off-nights. I couldn't care less.

Please don't think I've veered off-topic. One thing follows another. No copyrights means either starving artists or no more maid service. I'd rather have the latter.

If you look farther, to the future of automation, you'll see that really nothing must be done by humans, except telling the robots what to do. In other words, prototype design. The best way, in most cases, of programming a fully automated factory is simply to make one chair by hand, using hand tools. Then toss it in the front door. Consumers will (or will not) order copies of your work. Clearly, the copies are free, since they demand only robot labor. (In a decent world, we use only renewable resources, or you'd have to pay your grandkids for them.)

Since that prototype creation cannot be copyrighted, the only expectation the artist/programmer/designer can entertain is that his prestige will increase. He'll be famous, and go to parties, and folks will ply him with handmade apple pies.

In a world with no copyright, plagiarism is a capital offense. If food and frisbees are free, then respect is the only important currency. So steal anything you like, kids -- but tell the world where you got it.

To recap: There are four divisions of labor:

1) Artists/Designers/Programmers
2) Farmers/Builders/Assemblers
3) Drivers/Housemaids/Hookers
4) Cops/Beancounters/Leeches

1) Designers do useful work that may or may not benefit everyone. They should get no money beyond Basic Dole, but if people use their designs, they should garner prestige.

2) Assemblers can, in most cases, be replaced by robots today. Those who truly enjoy the work should be given it, but they should get no money for amusing themselves.

3) Robots can assume purely functional roles in the service industry, but while most people will accept robot drivers, some will demand human housemaids, and I suppose there will always be a need for playgirls and playboys. Such workers should be paid money; but since this is the only way anybody can get money, there can be no class distinction between servers and those served.

4) The greater part of the army of men and women who exist merely to impose upon the rest of us -- lawyers and accountants, bankers and toll-collectors, clerks of every description, rubber-stamp operators -- can be done away with. We certainly shouldn't reward them in any way. People who want to govern or monitor the rest of us should be required to pay money for the privilege, and be given no prestige whatever for their pains.

Naturally, a great many people will, under this system, never do another lick of work, or imitation work, again. Bless them! They won't need to drive their SUVs to their meaningless jobs. We can brick in the streets and plant flowers. They can stay at home and watch Monday Night Football, all day, every day. It's free.