6 ms·

People complain about the special interests, but some fail to realize that the major backers of Extreme Copyright (TM) are a special interest that we created.

People complain about the special interests, but some fail to realize that the major backers of Extreme Copyright (TM) are a special interest that we created. We, the US public, out of the goodness of our hearts and wanting to foster art, gave up our right to "repeat what we heard" (copying, when what you hear is digital) in return for incentives to create art. And then bam; decades later the incentives are the de facto baseline, and have been extended with almost no public awareness (let alone debate) using the special interest money that our goodwill created for them. It is the ultimate checkmate of democracy, and if it weren't so unjust, you would have to hand it to the media industries for playing so masterfully. Well, good job. You got us. You took the rules we made, and took the public (US, but even more abroad, by exporting your draconian laws via more special interest money) and absolutely destroyed us. You won. Game over. But wait... not quite. The game is politics. And if you had been content to simply swim in your unimaginable Scrooge McDuck pool of gold dubloons, you would swim until the end of time. But the public is finally starting to notice, and the technorati whose careers and employers (like Google) depend on having a level playing field (even though they try to tilt it in their favor when they can) are starting to notice. I'm not so optimistic that change will come, but if it does, my vote will be for whatever is closest to "burn the fucker to the ground". And some other people feel the same way. What's the possible consequence of such an extreme change? I guess the risk of fewer Taylor Swifts. Fewer Kany Wests. Fewer Oracles. Fewer Microsofts. Fewer Steve Jobs. Those are such small consequences that, to be honest, they might be additional benefits. It would be best if the copyright system were reduced to a smouldering ruin, so that the public could better understand exactly what we gave up when the copyright regime was created, and make a more informed decision about which incentives really are needed to make innovation happen. Until we do, the special interests created by those very laws will continue to make us pay for the favor we gave them.

rayiner 10y ago
> Fewer Oracles. Fewer Microsofts. Fewer Steve Jobs. Was it so bad back when you could just buy software for money? Before business models built on eyeballs and data mining instead of copyright?
- brianwawok 10y ago
  Like when windows extended Java then started adding incompatibile methods to the windows Java extension that would be on all windows computers? Or maybe when office used a hidden format to store files so no one could share files without buying a license? They were not great times at all...
  - deciplex 10y ago
    Was the hold Office format hidden? It was delightfully obtuse and even obfuscated IMO, no doubt about that, but not impenetrable, and you can find the docs describing the file format on Microsoft's site now. Could you not get them 10-15 years ago?
    - jonathankoren 10y ago
      Nope. The formats were completely undocumented. Nothing outside of Microsoft could properly import the formats. Sure things tried, but they inevitably always failed in rather dramatic ways. Joel on Software had article about the file formats several years ago. Apparently big chunks of the files are basically just memdumps. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/02/19.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/02/19.html
      - tajen 10y ago
        I know a guy who worked at Microsoft and left to create a .doc reader for some other software. He said the .doc format wasn't even documented inside Microsoft and pretty much no-one could tell you how to parse it, apart from trial-and-error.
    - tripzilch 10y ago
      The prevailing idea seemed to be that if you wanted conversion of Word documents, let's say to screenshots, to match properly in all cases, the only way was a dedicated (or virtual) machine running Windows+Word and some VBS to automate the conversion. I don't know if this is still the best way. LibreOffice has came a long way for sure, but still doesn't reproduce Word's layout perfectly (which is still the expectation).
majormajor 10y ago
> I guess the risk of fewer Taylor Swifts. Fewer Kany Wests. Fewer Oracles. Fewer Microsofts. Fewer Steve Jobs. Those are such small consequences that, to be honest, they might be additional benefits. Most of the public would consider those pretty enormous consequences. Heck, I'd be upset if I had to switch away from a MacBook Pro to a commodity-PC-hardware + Linux solution for personal use today, even without any of the other things that group of people and companies you mention have produced. And I'm a-ok with paying for those things, or paying other people for doing interesting things on top of those things. Maybe you think the risk of that actually happening is pretty small, but as-written, the consequences are actually pretty huge.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- tajen 10y ago
  You would still buy a Macbook if patents and copyright did not exist, wouldn't you? In fact there are much more powerful designs in the PC world. But you stick to the Apple brand because you've been burnt with everything else, from cheap knock-offs to famous makers who distribute an OEM versions of Windows with viruses and rogue root CA certificates. What saves Apple is being the only make you can rely on. They're not particularly innovative in the products they make. What is the role of patents in that?
  - Programmatic 10y ago
    Without copyright, anyone could make a knockoff Apple and it would dilute their brand so much as to make it unworkable for Apple to make a quality product and get paid for it. Apple absolutely requires copyright protection of their software to keep their brand exclusive to drive profit to keep making nice products. The PC world that you noted is the epitome of the race to the bottom they would have to participate in otherwise.
    - tripzilch 10y ago
      I disagree. The race to the bottom you observe with PCs is largely caused by the same lock-in forces enabled by strong copyright. In your hypothetical example world, Linux would be on equal playing field when it comes to video/hardware drivers. So it could compete as a serious gaming platform. Without vendor lock-in, hardware would have to be more interchangeable, so can select their own choice of hardware, which can be cheap or expensive or powerful or quality or pretty etc and fit it inside an aluminium casing if they like. They could get a matte screen and a nice keyboard ... Without Apple's market power behind it, nobody would consider using iTunes over a normal mp3 player. There is demand for pretty computers, powerful ones, durable & sturdy ones, et cetera. That won't change without Apple. Sure it won't offer the exact same things Apple does today, but on the other hand it will provide a whole bunch of things that Apple today doesn't or won't. On the whole it will be neutral or positive.
quadrangle 10y ago
"We, the US public, out of the goodness of our hearts and wanting to foster art" I was not part of that, and neither was I part of some minority complaining while the majority did this. I don't think this ever happened. Just because there's a pretense of democracy doesn't mean the general public is actually to blame for everything.
- mancerayder 10y ago
  I also had to scratch my head at that, despite an otherwise nicely written comment. It's not like copyright law is something Presidential candidates run on. I think the author is overstating his case with regards to public perceptions. The first problem with public perceptions is, when laws are forged in the court room (or codified in treaties), they're essentially happening removed from public scrutiny. Not everyone is reading EFF manifestos. It's even worse because they're technical questions, requiring a certain expertise in IT as a specialized field, meaning a small percentage of people in the U.S. understand much less care about these laws. Where I may agree about a shift in perceptions is for a different reason. As more people have entered the field, which now has television shows about it and some of the world's largest companies to boot, there are more people with an interest/curiosity or knowledge in IT. Better able to understand the ramifications of rulings about APIs. But as someone said, we don't really leave in that much of a democracy as we think. Corporations have a louder voice. If they stand to benefit for a position they'll make more noise (in legal efforts or lobbying) in favor of it. And it's no surprise that we're seeing two behemoths battle it out.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - appleflaxen 10y ago
    Fair enough. My point is only that this is a consensual system at its root. And when the public votes with there money (the Montgomery bus boycott) and back it up at the ballot box, you could actually effect change.
    - 10y ago
tajen 10y ago
> I guess the risk of fewer Taylor Swifts. Are you straight or ironic? Let's not forget that, in the current system, labels get served first while those artists remain in debt. It works with the system of advances and invoicing, mostly for tours and TV, but in the present situation I've found the example with album sales: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml

rayiner 10y ago

> Fewer Oracles. Fewer Microsofts. Fewer Steve Jobs. Was it so bad back when you could just buy software for money? Before business models built on eyeballs and data mining instead of copyright?

brianwawok 10y ago
Like when windows extended Java then started adding incompatibile methods to the windows Java extension that would be on all windows computers? Or maybe when office used a hidden format to store files so no one could share files without buying a license? They were not great times at all...
- deciplex 10y ago
  Was the hold Office format hidden? It was delightfully obtuse and even obfuscated IMO, no doubt about that, but not impenetrable, and you can find the docs describing the file format on Microsoft's site now. Could you not get them 10-15 years ago?
  - jonathankoren 10y ago
    Nope. The formats were completely undocumented. Nothing outside of Microsoft could properly import the formats. Sure things tried, but they inevitably always failed in rather dramatic ways. Joel on Software had article about the file formats several years ago. Apparently big chunks of the files are basically just memdumps. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/02/19.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/02/19.html
    - tajen 10y ago
      I know a guy who worked at Microsoft and left to create a .doc reader for some other software. He said the .doc format wasn't even documented inside Microsoft and pretty much no-one could tell you how to parse it, apart from trial-and-error.
  - tripzilch 10y ago
    The prevailing idea seemed to be that if you wanted conversion of Word documents, let's say to screenshots, to match properly in all cases, the only way was a dedicated (or virtual) machine running Windows+Word and some VBS to automate the conversion. I don't know if this is still the best way. LibreOffice has came a long way for sure, but still doesn't reproduce Word's layout perfectly (which is still the expectation).

majormajor 10y ago

> I guess the risk of fewer Taylor Swifts. Fewer Kany Wests. Fewer Oracles. Fewer Microsofts. Fewer Steve Jobs. Those are such small consequences that, to be honest, they might be additional benefits. Most of the public would consider those pretty enormous consequences. Heck, I'd be upset if I had to switch away from a MacBook Pro to a commodity-PC-hardware + Linux solution for personal use today, even without any of the other things that group of people and companies you mention have produced. And I'm a-ok with paying for those things, or paying other people for doing interesting things on top of those things. Maybe you think the risk of that actually happening is pretty small, but as-written, the consequences are actually pretty huge.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
tajen 10y ago
You would still buy a Macbook if patents and copyright did not exist, wouldn't you? In fact there are much more powerful designs in the PC world. But you stick to the Apple brand because you've been burnt with everything else, from cheap knock-offs to famous makers who distribute an OEM versions of Windows with viruses and rogue root CA certificates. What saves Apple is being the only make you can rely on. They're not particularly innovative in the products they make. What is the role of patents in that?
- Programmatic 10y ago
  Without copyright, anyone could make a knockoff Apple and it would dilute their brand so much as to make it unworkable for Apple to make a quality product and get paid for it. Apple absolutely requires copyright protection of their software to keep their brand exclusive to drive profit to keep making nice products. The PC world that you noted is the epitome of the race to the bottom they would have to participate in otherwise.
  - tripzilch 10y ago
    I disagree. The race to the bottom you observe with PCs is largely caused by the same lock-in forces enabled by strong copyright. In your hypothetical example world, Linux would be on equal playing field when it comes to video/hardware drivers. So it could compete as a serious gaming platform. Without vendor lock-in, hardware would have to be more interchangeable, so can select their own choice of hardware, which can be cheap or expensive or powerful or quality or pretty etc and fit it inside an aluminium casing if they like. They could get a matte screen and a nice keyboard ... Without Apple's market power behind it, nobody would consider using iTunes over a normal mp3 player. There is demand for pretty computers, powerful ones, durable & sturdy ones, et cetera. That won't change without Apple. Sure it won't offer the exact same things Apple does today, but on the other hand it will provide a whole bunch of things that Apple today doesn't or won't. On the whole it will be neutral or positive.

quadrangle 10y ago

"We, the US public, out of the goodness of our hearts and wanting to foster art" I was not part of that, and neither was I part of some minority complaining while the majority did this. I don't think this ever happened. Just because there's a pretense of democracy doesn't mean the general public is actually to blame for everything.

mancerayder 10y ago
I also had to scratch my head at that, despite an otherwise nicely written comment. It's not like copyright law is something Presidential candidates run on. I think the author is overstating his case with regards to public perceptions. The first problem with public perceptions is, when laws are forged in the court room (or codified in treaties), they're essentially happening removed from public scrutiny. Not everyone is reading EFF manifestos. It's even worse because they're technical questions, requiring a certain expertise in IT as a specialized field, meaning a small percentage of people in the U.S. understand much less care about these laws. Where I may agree about a shift in perceptions is for a different reason. As more people have entered the field, which now has television shows about it and some of the world's largest companies to boot, there are more people with an interest/curiosity or knowledge in IT. Better able to understand the ramifications of rulings about APIs. But as someone said, we don't really leave in that much of a democracy as we think. Corporations have a louder voice. If they stand to benefit for a position they'll make more noise (in legal efforts or lobbying) in favor of it. And it's no surprise that we're seeing two behemoths battle it out.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- appleflaxen 10y ago
  Fair enough. My point is only that this is a consensual system at its root. And when the public votes with there money (the Montgomery bus boycott) and back it up at the ballot box, you could actually effect change.
  - 10y ago

tajen 10y ago

> I guess the risk of fewer Taylor Swifts. Are you straight or ironic? Let's not forget that, in the current system, labels get served first while those artists remain in debt. It works with the system of advances and invoicing, mostly for tours and TV, but in the present situation I've found the example with album sales: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml