Philosophical Quandry: Piracy

[geoschmo]

Baron, all of that is quite interesting and thought provoking. But I have no idea why you quoted my question at the begining of it because it doesn't even partially address my question. It's just a more eloquent description of your view of the problem.

I agree with a lot of what you said. But I still would like to know what good is any copyright, even one with a limited lifespan, if you can't keep people from copying and giving away the work that you sell to make a living? How does someone like Aaron make a living writing software games if anyone can simply download a copy for free off the internet or get it from a friend without even an threat of legal repurcussions?

I don't think most people are like you Baron. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that the majority of people who copy software or music have not put as much thought into whether it is right or wrong as you have. They simply figure they can't really get caught and so they don't care if it's wrong. And I believe most people that don't copy software and music don't refrain out of an sense that it is inherantly wrong to do so without compensating the author. They don't do it simply because they believe that there might be a way they could get caught. Or they believe it is against the law to copy and obey the law. Excepting those that simply don't listen to music or play games of course.

So removing the threat of legal penalties, however impotent it may be, removes what little recourse the authors do have to control the use of their production, does it not?

Or are you saying that the current system of enforcment and penalties is acceptable as long as the term of the copyright is limited and not transferable? If that is what you are saying I suppose your post does sort of respond to my question. It was just a bit subtle and it took me a couple readings to see it.

Geoschmo

[ July 16, 2003, 13:58: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Erax]

Baron, awesome post ! I could never express myself half as well as you have done it.

Geo, the current system of enforcement and penalties is not acceptable, because it fails to prevent piracy ! I personally feel that 'content' will eventually become free or nearly so through pressure from the competition (illegal though it may be).

If your perception of the current situation is correct (and I'd say it complements the Baron's post nicely), you shouldn't expect people to suddenly develop a better conscience. And copy-proof content is not too likely to happen either.

I'd say a business and legal model that faces the plain fact that you can't prevent people from copying content (no matter how much you'd like to) might satisfy all parties involved. The current system won't, no matter how hard they try to push it.

While content may be easily copied, service cannot. Therefore, a new business model will probably arise over time, something on the order of 'the car is yours for free, but you have to fill it up at my gas station'. That is one possibility. Open source is another. PvK's 'content tax' is another. Some day one of these proposals will replace the current standard.

[geoschmo]

Erax, exaplin to me how you expect a game such as SE4 could ever survive under such a system? What type of "service" would we be talking about here? Aaron gives away the game and sells patches? You honestly think something like that would work?

And how could authors of books and musicians make a living? What sort of "service" do I need for my Dan Fogelburg CD's or my Asimov books?

And I am sorry but Pvk's content tax idea is so unrealisitc and flawed I am not even sure how to effectivly comment on it. I didn't think he was actually suggesting it as a realistic possibility but as an extreme point for comparison.

Administrativly it would be a nightmare. Who would determine what is worthy of compensation. The government? I am not one of these people who thinks games like Grand Theft Auto should be censored or Banned, but I will be damned if I think my tax dollars should go to support it. The whole idea is so counter to the idea of a free market capitalist system I can't even find anything in it I like.

Geoschmo

[ July 16, 2003, 15:22: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Baron Munchausen]

Geo,

You've almost got it. Copyright would work if the original 'public contract' were restored. The deal was that the original creator/compiler of the information got to control it for a limited time. Then it was public property. Corporate suits are trying to turn this into feudalism where we pay them forever. The right to control commercial exploitation of information has been mutated into 'financial damage' from losing 'potential' income and then mutated again into an imagined 'right' to the income that they think they should be getting. Feudalism didn't work with 'real' property, it sure isn't gonna work with 'intellectual' property. Those peasants went right ahead and poached game from the 'King's Land' when they were starving. Even the threat of mutilation (amputation of hands like the current wave of radicals in Islamic countries advocate for stealing) or outright death did not prevent them. Trying to make us all serfs on the corporate info-plantation is also doomed to failure and people instinctively recognize the unfairness of it. Since the current 'law' is completely contrary to the facts of life they ignore it. Just like the peasants who ignored the law that demanded they starve rather than go get the food they knew was there.

[ July 16, 2003, 15:38: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[rdouglass]

Originally posted by deccan:
.........Really? References please? I don't mean to imply that you're lying, simply that you might be mistaken.....

http://global.bsa.org/usa/press/news...-17.1667.phtml

[geoschmo]

Ok Baron. (Hey, it's ironic your nick considering your vehment opposition to the practice of feudalism. )

So basically instead of coming up with wacked out methods of compensaiton, or reinventing our whole economic system, and in the process causing more serious problems then we are fixing, the solution is simple.

Eliminate the practice of selling the actual copyright of any material. This includes any sort of backdoor methods such as performance contracts or the like. The current system where the corporations act as owner and distributor of the product must cease. The Author of the material must own the rights to the product and the corporations will be their employees contracted for the purpose of marketing and distribution, instead of the artist being the employee (slave really) of the corporation.

Limit the length of the copyright of any sort of information to something more reasonable and realistic. This would vary depending on the type of material. Longer for books, shorter for software, music and movies somewhere in the middle.

During the term of the copyright the artist would control the distribution and sale of the material and receive whatever compensation for it that can be determined through the natural market process of supply and demand. They would likely need to contract with various distributors or marketers, all of whom should receive compensation for their services from the author, but the author/artist would retain the copyrights to it.

Any aunathorized duplication of the material during the copyright period would have stiff penalties. Of course if the author/artist decides to do so he can waive some or all of those penalties, but he shuld retain the right to have them enforced as strictly as they wish, including financial and possible criminal proceedings, depending on the type and severity of the incident. This would NOT be limited to copies made and distributed for profit but extend also to copies made to avoid payment for the material, unless the author decides to allow such copies to be made.

Once the copyright period ends the material becomes public domain and can be freely copied and distributed by anyone. At that point anyone that can succesfully market the product in such a way that there is a demand for it will be entitled to the compensation with no requirement to pay the orignal author.

I see two problems with this idea.

One, what happens on the death of the author? Does the product become public domain or can the copyright be transfered to his heirs until the term expires?

Secondly, what about an author who writes a book and then wants to use the same characters in a later book? Does the copyright on those characters run from the Last book in the series or the first? Can any joe blow go off and start writing Honor Harrington books once the term expires on the original book, even thogh the author is still producing novels with her in it?

Geoschmo

[ July 16, 2003, 16:10: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Suicide Junkie]

Does the copyright on those characters run from the Last book in the series or the first? Can any joe blow go off and start writing Honor Harrington books once the term expires on the original book, even thogh the author is still producing novels with her in it?

Characters aren't copyrighted, the books/movie/etc are. Characters become trademarks, like the Energizer Bunny and Mickey Mouse, instead.