Philosophical Quandry: Piracy

[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.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
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?

Actually, the more I think about this, the less I think it's a problem. So someone else writes a book with your character in it. That can be a good thing for you actually because it can generate interest in your original works which you can still be distributing.

Also, you could allow corporations to "buy out" an authors copyright so that they could distibute the product freely themselves, but doing so should not transfer the copyright to them. It should transfer the work into the public domain early, so that in effect anyone would be free to market and distribute it. This could make sense as a business model considering the limited lifespan of most of these types of things. The author could get a big check at once instead of waiting for royalties over the term of the copyright and no hassles with inforcing the copyright. The corporation gets a head start on production and distribution over any competitiors, and should have the advantage in the market as theirs would be the "official Version". But they would still have to produce a quality product as they would be subject to market competition.

Geoschmo

[ July 16, 2003, 16:20: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
Characters aren't copyrighted, the books/movie/etc are. Characters become trademarks, like the Energizer Bunny and Mickey Mouse, instead.

Ok, so how is that handled then? Do trademarks have a longer lifespan then copyrights? I don't really know anything about it.

Geoschmo

[Erax]

Erax, explain 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.

I am not saying those proposals, which were though up on the spur of the moment (mine took all of five minutes to write up), would actually work. Mine works for antivirus software but not for stories or music (books and CDs are media, not content). But people have to challenge the current system, which obviously does not work, and trade ideas around until someone comes up with something viable. Hey, you've done it yourself.

I like your proposal because the original author is compensated and he may keep his copyright if that is important to him - but then he runs the risk of losing some profits to piracy.

I still see a problem with corporate-produced content which does not 'belong' to the people who did the real creative work, but I like your idea.

Edit : Aaaron gives SE4 away for free, then makes you his partner and charges a subscription to access PBW.

[ July 16, 2003, 16:40: Message edited by: Erax ]

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Erax:
I still see a problem with corporate-produced content which does not 'belong' to the people who did the real creative work, but I like your idea.

Yeah, that's another one I hadn't thought of. Perhaps we make that illegal. *Geo whips out his magic law making pen*

Corporations were not designed to produce knowledge anyway. They are designed to give the business owner some limited protection of his personal assets in case of a business failure. They are not supposed to function as virtual persons in every way, and allowing them to do so is dangerous for a lot of reasons.

So if a corporate employee produces some marketable information, ie software, the employee should retain the copyright. But some equitable arangment should be created which compensates the copropration. Since the work itself would not have been possible without the support the author received while creating the work. But the rights should be retain by the person or persons mostly responsible with the act of creation. For something like windows I guess that would be the team of writers involved in the process.

Originally posted by Erax:

Edit : Aaaron gives SE4 away for free, then makes you his partner and charges a subscription to access PBW.

Yeah, unfortunatly that's just not a realistic business model. Only a very small percentage of people who bought SE4 use PBW. Not enough to support Aaron, certainly not enough to support both of us.

[ July 16, 2003, 16:55: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[tesco samoa]

I think 5 years is a good time limit for everything ( for non commerical use )
And 20 years for commerical use of everything.

Where commerical use means some one somewhere is making money off it.

And if a project was funded by governement at all grants then it is automaticly placed in the public domain.

The public domain is a good thing and all of society benifits from it.

Companies still make money off public domain. Ever buy a book that was written before 1923 ... Its all public domain.

There is a lot of music available in the public domain as well.

Now for the concept of trademarking and patienting ideas and concepts.... I think that this should not be allowed.... Society does not benifit one bit from that.

Imagine if someone patiented the idea of a vechile that moves on tracks in the 1820's.... With todays laws...

Innovation and copyrights and patients travel down two seperate roads in opposite directions...

[geoschmo]

Tesco, I think the idea is that you can't patent the idea for a train, but you can patent a specific type of train locamotive, or at least some parts of it that are unique and your own design. You can't patent a steam engine after all. Patenting has benifits to soceity in that it encourages research and inovation, which can have some pretty substantial up front costs. But like copyright it can be taken to non-productive extremes.

I don't have a problem with you 5 year, 20 year terms. I think that is probably a bit long for software, but it would probably work for books. But I do have a question about what is commercial and what is non-commercial. If my friend buys a copy of SE4 and I burn a copy so I don't have to pay for it, is that a commercial or non commercial use?

Geoschmo

[ July 16, 2003, 18:42: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[PvK]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
pvk they should have people on everystreet cornor watching out for people who jay walk and ticket them.

It is as equally morally wrong. And all laws should be equally enforced

The UK is also full of surveillance video cameras, even worse than the US is getting. Big Brother is watching you, and his local governments are counting on ticket revenues from people who forget their seatbelts, or for not having a registration sticker on their license plate, or who drive a high-performance car 5 mph over a pointless speed limit where the bus routinely drives 10-15 mph over.

PvK