4 ms·

I understand that you're simplifying, but I don't think social ill is the right word. It's more like a social good which is ill for the copyright holder. The qu

by ewzimm 11y ago

I understand that you're simplifying, but I don't think social ill is the right word. It's more like a social good which is ill for the copyright holder. The question in that case is balancing the benefit to society against the benefits to the company which claims copyright or intellectual property. It's a social good in the sense that public domain is a social good when society can benefit, but also a deeper social good for the society which inspired and produced the copyrighted work because it allows it to be distributed to people in countries that would otherwise not have access to it. For example, perhaps the greatest weapon against anti-Americanism is American culture spread through Hollywood and other media. This would normally not be sold in areas that are hostile to American values, but leaked material penetrates the culture and reverses hostility. This really comes down to the classic question of whether it's more important to benefit society in general or the rights of property holders. There are people who strongly believe in both extremes and lots of people in the middle. Some say that property is the foundation of freedom and we should sacrifice social good for the promotion of property and others say that the needs of the many outsweigh the needs of the few, even that property is theft of social value. Where any person might stand on these issues is complicated, to say the least.

netrus 11y ago
You do not mention that the existence of property is meant to benefit the society as a whole. Copyright provides us with blockbusters. We can discuss about fair use, expiration, fines etc, but let's not pretend that STAR WARS would have happend without copyright law.
- iamcurious 11y ago
  Plenty of works of art were created without copyright law. Would we have STAR WARS? No idea. Would we have awesome films? Definitely.
  - talmand 11y ago
    But, would those plenty of works of art were created before copying such things became incredibly easy? It seems to me that the concept of copyright became stronger over time as the ability to make money off the work of someone else became easier over time.
    - iamcurious 11y ago
      Sure, see all the graffiti everywhere? Laws aren't protecting that art, au contraire. The concept of copyright became stronger as lobbying and surveillance state became stronger. Creative people will create regardless. Creative people who have ample free time and who don't have to think about bills much, will create more and, more importantly, more accessible works. The sophisticated thing to do is to allow copying anybody's ideas¹ and give people a guaranteed income². ¹ I think plagiarism, ie not giving credit where its due, should be punished. I'm not sure if it should fall in the realm of the law though, maybe it could be kept check under social pressure. ² If it can't be universal, then make it scholarship based, subject to renewal, or something.
      - gknoy 11y ago
        > See all the graffiti everywhere? Laws aren't protecting that art, au contraire. Is that really true? I would have thought that the art itself is still copyrighted, but the artist is unlikely to pursue redress as that would effectively be giving evidence of a crime (graffiti).
      - talmand 11y ago
        I would say that copyright does indeed cover graffiti, it just not likely for the original artist to sue you for selling copies of their artwork because they also possibly illegally damaged private property. Some of the Banksy stuff brings up interesting discussions around that idea. The lobbying part I can understand, and agree, but I'm lost on your surveillance state thing. All those creative people with all their creativity is covered by copyright as soon as they get done being creative. In the US at least. But whether they make money from their copyrighted creativity, that's a different problem. Copyright doesn't help me make money but it helps me prevent you from making money off my work.
- ewzimm 11y ago
  What I said is that it's a contentious issue. It doesn't really matter what copyright is meant to be, only what it actually is, and there are both people who belive it's beneficial to society and people who believe it's detrimental to society. The overall effects of leaked material are related but not the same as the existence of copyright. Both copyright and leaks can and do coexist, so even if copyright is a social good, leaks could still be an overall benefit to society. I would say that it's hard to argue that the ability to make and share infinite copies of something at almost no cost is a benefit to society, especially for the spread of culture, but I agree that it's damaging to the concept of intellectual property. So this issue of leaked materials being overall good or bad is really a proxy for a deeper argument. If you're starting from the position that property rights are more important than the spread of culture and the availability of material, you can still believe that leaks are overall a social good, one which needs to be sacrificed at times for the greater good of copyright and protection of intellectual property. We have to make these kinds of sacrifices all the time, which leads to interesting situations like this. Sometimes, the best thing for society is that laws are broken, even if those laws are essentially correct. The perfect society isn't necessarily one that always follows the rules, but one that makes the right sacrifices for the overall good. Copyright is probably the best example of this situation. Even if the laws are entirely justified, there are plenty of situations in which innovation happened because someone learned something from leaked copyrighted material. It's tempting to believe that it's possible to create a set of rules that everyone can agree to and always create the optimal situation, but in the real world, this never happens. The real world is messy, and sometimes entirely justifiable laws have a net positive effect when they're broken.
Ensorceled 11y ago
> I understand that you're simplifying, but I don't think social ill is the right word. It's more like a social good which is ill for the copyright holder. The question in that case is balancing the benefit to society against the benefits to the company which claims copyright or intellectual property. Copyright is a limited monopoly, granted by society, to provide incentive for the creation of content; breaking that contract is a social ill. I disagree society breaking that contract, in a bait and switch, can ever be a social good.
- mdpopescu 11y ago
  If society is indeed the one granting that monopoly then society can also withdraw it, right?
  - Ensorceled 11y ago
    Agreed! People who think copyright is some kind of actual human right drive me crazy.

by ewzimm 11y ago

netrus 11y ago

You do not mention that the existence of property is meant to benefit the society as a whole. Copyright provides us with blockbusters. We can discuss about fair use, expiration, fines etc, but let's not pretend that STAR WARS would have happend without copyright law.

iamcurious 11y ago
Plenty of works of art were created without copyright law. Would we have STAR WARS? No idea. Would we have awesome films? Definitely.
- talmand 11y ago
  But, would those plenty of works of art were created before copying such things became incredibly easy? It seems to me that the concept of copyright became stronger over time as the ability to make money off the work of someone else became easier over time.
  - iamcurious 11y ago
    Sure, see all the graffiti everywhere? Laws aren't protecting that art, au contraire. The concept of copyright became stronger as lobbying and surveillance state became stronger. Creative people will create regardless. Creative people who have ample free time and who don't have to think about bills much, will create more and, more importantly, more accessible works. The sophisticated thing to do is to allow copying anybody's ideas¹ and give people a guaranteed income². ¹ I think plagiarism, ie not giving credit where its due, should be punished. I'm not sure if it should fall in the realm of the law though, maybe it could be kept check under social pressure. ² If it can't be universal, then make it scholarship based, subject to renewal, or something.
    - gknoy 11y ago
      > See all the graffiti everywhere? Laws aren't protecting that art, au contraire. Is that really true? I would have thought that the art itself is still copyrighted, but the artist is unlikely to pursue redress as that would effectively be giving evidence of a crime (graffiti).
    - talmand 11y ago
      I would say that copyright does indeed cover graffiti, it just not likely for the original artist to sue you for selling copies of their artwork because they also possibly illegally damaged private property. Some of the Banksy stuff brings up interesting discussions around that idea. The lobbying part I can understand, and agree, but I'm lost on your surveillance state thing. All those creative people with all their creativity is covered by copyright as soon as they get done being creative. In the US at least. But whether they make money from their copyrighted creativity, that's a different problem. Copyright doesn't help me make money but it helps me prevent you from making money off my work.
ewzimm 11y ago
What I said is that it's a contentious issue. It doesn't really matter what copyright is meant to be, only what it actually is, and there are both people who belive it's beneficial to society and people who believe it's detrimental to society. The overall effects of leaked material are related but not the same as the existence of copyright. Both copyright and leaks can and do coexist, so even if copyright is a social good, leaks could still be an overall benefit to society. I would say that it's hard to argue that the ability to make and share infinite copies of something at almost no cost is a benefit to society, especially for the spread of culture, but I agree that it's damaging to the concept of intellectual property. So this issue of leaked materials being overall good or bad is really a proxy for a deeper argument. If you're starting from the position that property rights are more important than the spread of culture and the availability of material, you can still believe that leaks are overall a social good, one which needs to be sacrificed at times for the greater good of copyright and protection of intellectual property. We have to make these kinds of sacrifices all the time, which leads to interesting situations like this. Sometimes, the best thing for society is that laws are broken, even if those laws are essentially correct. The perfect society isn't necessarily one that always follows the rules, but one that makes the right sacrifices for the overall good. Copyright is probably the best example of this situation. Even if the laws are entirely justified, there are plenty of situations in which innovation happened because someone learned something from leaked copyrighted material. It's tempting to believe that it's possible to create a set of rules that everyone can agree to and always create the optimal situation, but in the real world, this never happens. The real world is messy, and sometimes entirely justifiable laws have a net positive effect when they're broken.

Ensorceled 11y ago

> I understand that you're simplifying, but I don't think social ill is the right word. It's more like a social good which is ill for the copyright holder. The question in that case is balancing the benefit to society against the benefits to the company which claims copyright or intellectual property. Copyright is a limited monopoly, granted by society, to provide incentive for the creation of content; breaking that contract is a social ill. I disagree society breaking that contract, in a bait and switch, can ever be a social good.

mdpopescu 11y ago
If society is indeed the one granting that monopoly then society can also withdraw it, right?
- Ensorceled 11y ago
  Agreed! People who think copyright is some kind of actual human right drive me crazy.