5 ms·

As I understood his argument, it had nothing to do with ease of duplication. Instead, it was about ownership. His contention that the creators (who are by impli

by pmccool 16y ago

As I understood his argument, it had nothing to do with ease of duplication. Instead, it was about ownership. His contention that the creators (who are by implication the owners) of intangible things have rights too is not invalidated by technology.

noonespecial 16y ago
Hmm. I should stop using "ease" and especially "duplication" when writing about this particular issue. Its too easy to get stuck on. You are right. It has nothing at all to do with duplication or how easy it is. One of technology's greatest and most subtle tricks is the elimination of scarcity. Its not that I can take one for myself (no matter how easy or hard it might be), its that when I do, I don't take yours. It up-ends the economic apple cart in a way that is very non-intuitive and difficult for the human mind to grasp via "common sense". Its easy to comprehend a lower and lower marginal cost per unit but once that cost reaches the zero limit, it seems that the formulas that our current economy depend on become undefined. Technology doesn't invalidate the rights of owners/creators, it forces us to completely reevaluate what ownership means. How to "pay" the author might not even be a meaningful question in the economy that results. We are fortunate that we get a long trial run on things as frivolous as music and moving picture stories before rep/raps bulldoze us on their way through to Star Trek replicators.
- pmccool 16y ago
  In my mind, there are two distinct arguments: that copyright is about the moral rights of the owner, and that opyright is economically useful. The moral argument has nothing to do with payment as such; it is all about control. Agreed, technology has some interesting effects of the notion of ownership: consider sampling and wikipedia to name but two. It affects the economic argument much more than the moral one; technology doesn't so much invalidate the concept of ownership as make certain modes of ownership uninteresting.
- pmccool 16y ago
  In my mind, there are two distinct arguments: that copyright is about the moral rights of the owner, and that copyright is economically useful. The moral argument has nothing to do with payment as such; it is all about control. Agreed, technology has some interesting effects of the notion of ownership: consider sampling and wikipedia to name but two. It affects the economic argument much more than the moral one; technology doesn't so much invalidate the concept of ownership as make certain modes of ownership uninteresting. edit: spelling
mkramlich 16y ago
And I agree with his contention. It seems pretty clear cut to me. For the pro-Eleanor folks, I want to break down here what are the elements in my pro-Jason stance, just to be real clear: 1. just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean you should do a thing [this nulls out the whole "b-b-but technology makes this possible now!" argument; for bonus points think of the implications of your stance regarding the availability of nuclear weapons] 2. you don't have a right to other people's work, automatically, by default, for free 3. if they make it available for free and/or say copy all you want -- that's fine, do it 4. ... but if they do not, you should honor their wishes regarding their own creation 5. ... if despite that, you do not, then you are unethical
- pyre 16y ago
  I tend to think that a lot of the loss of respect that people have to copyright/IP/etc breaks down to: 1. The abuse of these rights by corporations. [e.g. 'patent-mills' that just crank out patents on any idea that pops into the heads of their engineers, even if it's just falls into the formula: "everyday object + {computers,internet} = brand new idea" or "patented idea 1 + {internet,computers} = patented idea 2" ] 2. The egregious way with which Congress/Corporations have extended the duration of IP rights to levels of absurdity that boggle the mind. Do people really believe that NBC would have had no reason to create a radio, and then television network if they were not guaranteed to still have copyrights on all of their content in the year 2010? Do you think that the person that wrote the "Happy Birthday" song, wouldn't have written it if they weren't guaranteed to hold a copyright until the year 2030 (not to mention that they took the melody from an earlier song, probably without licensing it... the horror)? From Wikipedia: > The Summy Company registered for copyright in 1935, crediting > authors Preston Ware Orem and Mrs. R.R. Forman. In 1990, Warner > Chappell purchased the company owning the copyright for U.S. $15 > million, with the value of "Happy Birthday" estimated at U.S. $5 > million.[5] Based on the 1935 copyright registration, Warner claims > that U.S. copyright will not expire until 2030, and that unauthorized > public performances of the song are technically illegal unless > royalties are paid to it. This is not an example of creating something of value. They are leeches that are sucking money out of the economy on the back of maybe a weeks worth of work (I hope that you're not going to claim that "Happy Birthday To You" was the result of millions of dollars of investment...) prior to 1935. It's rather an example of someone creating something 'trivial' and expecting to 'hit it big,' never creating something of value again.

by pmccool 16y ago

noonespecial 16y ago

Hmm. I should stop using "ease" and especially "duplication" when writing about this particular issue. Its too easy to get stuck on. You are right. It has nothing at all to do with duplication or how easy it is. One of technology's greatest and most subtle tricks is the elimination of scarcity. Its not that I can take one for myself (no matter how easy or hard it might be), its that when I do, I don't take yours. It up-ends the economic apple cart in a way that is very non-intuitive and difficult for the human mind to grasp via "common sense". Its easy to comprehend a lower and lower marginal cost per unit but once that cost reaches the zero limit, it seems that the formulas that our current economy depend on become undefined. Technology doesn't invalidate the rights of owners/creators, it forces us to completely reevaluate what ownership means. How to "pay" the author might not even be a meaningful question in the economy that results. We are fortunate that we get a long trial run on things as frivolous as music and moving picture stories before rep/raps bulldoze us on their way through to Star Trek replicators.

pmccool 16y ago
In my mind, there are two distinct arguments: that copyright is about the moral rights of the owner, and that opyright is economically useful. The moral argument has nothing to do with payment as such; it is all about control. Agreed, technology has some interesting effects of the notion of ownership: consider sampling and wikipedia to name but two. It affects the economic argument much more than the moral one; technology doesn't so much invalidate the concept of ownership as make certain modes of ownership uninteresting.
pmccool 16y ago
In my mind, there are two distinct arguments: that copyright is about the moral rights of the owner, and that copyright is economically useful. The moral argument has nothing to do with payment as such; it is all about control. Agreed, technology has some interesting effects of the notion of ownership: consider sampling and wikipedia to name but two. It affects the economic argument much more than the moral one; technology doesn't so much invalidate the concept of ownership as make certain modes of ownership uninteresting. edit: spelling

mkramlich 16y ago

And I agree with his contention. It seems pretty clear cut to me. For the pro-Eleanor folks, I want to break down here what are the elements in my pro-Jason stance, just to be real clear: 1. just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean you should do a thing [this nulls out the whole "b-b-but technology makes this possible now!" argument; for bonus points think of the implications of your stance regarding the availability of nuclear weapons] 2. you don't have a right to other people's work, automatically, by default, for free 3. if they make it available for free and/or say copy all you want -- that's fine, do it 4. ... but if they do not, you should honor their wishes regarding their own creation 5. ... if despite that, you do not, then you are unethical

pyre 16y ago
I tend to think that a lot of the loss of respect that people have to copyright/IP/etc breaks down to: 1. The abuse of these rights by corporations. [e.g. 'patent-mills' that just crank out patents on any idea that pops into the heads of their engineers, even if it's just falls into the formula: "everyday object + {computers,internet} = brand new idea" or "patented idea 1 + {internet,computers} = patented idea 2" ] 2. The egregious way with which Congress/Corporations have extended the duration of IP rights to levels of absurdity that boggle the mind. Do people really believe that NBC would have had no reason to create a radio, and then television network if they were not guaranteed to still have copyrights on all of their content in the year 2010? Do you think that the person that wrote the "Happy Birthday" song, wouldn't have written it if they weren't guaranteed to hold a copyright until the year 2030 (not to mention that they took the melody from an earlier song, probably without licensing it... the horror)? From Wikipedia: > The Summy Company registered for copyright in 1935, crediting > authors Preston Ware Orem and Mrs. R.R. Forman. In 1990, Warner > Chappell purchased the company owning the copyright for U.S. $15 > million, with the value of "Happy Birthday" estimated at U.S. $5 > million.[5] Based on the 1935 copyright registration, Warner claims > that U.S. copyright will not expire until 2030, and that unauthorized > public performances of the song are technically illegal unless > royalties are paid to it. This is not an example of creating something of value. They are leeches that are sucking money out of the economy on the back of maybe a weeks worth of work (I hope that you're not going to claim that "Happy Birthday To You" was the result of millions of dollars of investment...) prior to 1935. It's rather an example of someone creating something 'trivial' and expecting to 'hit it big,' never creating something of value again.