5 ms·

It recently came to my attention that the mere concept of copyright law could be abolished with little economic consequence. In the end, the existence of those

It recently came to my attention that the mere concept of copyright law could be abolished with little economic consequence. In the end, the existence of those laws derives capital from other things, and it works as a sort of economic rent. Would we be better without copyright laws?

bo1024 9y ago
It's a good question to ask as a thought exercise, especially since so many vested interests don't want you to think about it, and try to condition you not to question it. I think the concept of copyright law is good in lots of ways, but the current copyright laws in the USA are pretty awful. It was originally 20 years, now it's 90+. Lots of old works are being lost or having access denied because they're still under copyright, but nobody is publishing them. Also related: "the war on sharing" https://stallman.org/articles/end-war-on-sharing.html https://stallman.org/articles/end-war-on-sharing.html
mjevans 9y ago
If I had to choose all or none, I'd choose none. Work for hire (producing something to begin with) would still be a thing. For a broader discussion I'd prefer to reference the actual text for the basis of US Copyright. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." With the meaning of those words at the time of their writing: * limited to scientific works * and methods of doing things that have direct industrial benefit. * ONLY by the author/inventor (not corporations) * LIMITED time, I think 5 years is probably plenty and 10 is a maximum. * I like the idea of a short default term, and paying (active effort) for longer renewal. * Consumer protections (trademarks) are a different matter entirely.
abritinthebay 9y ago
No, we wouldn't, but I'd suggest going back to the earlier laws that weren't overreaching like the current ones. In many ways it isn't even about copyright - it's about IP, and that's actually a whole other problem.
dhimes 9y ago
I still think you have to give authors and artists a way to make money from their works, and in principle at least copyright is helpful. But copyright seems to be becoming effectively perpetual and that's not helpful. And the whole scientific publishing bullshit is even worse.
- mort96 9y ago
  My impression has been that the way bands make money is not from selling their music, because the record company takes most of that money, but rather from going on tours and selling people expensive tickets to experience something which is fundamentally impossible to experience through piracy.
  - craftyguy 9y ago
    So you found one niche that suits your argument. What should writers do, throw 'writing concerts'? How about photographers? Filmographers?
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      Writers are not really protected copyright wise...they can always talk and explain and expand on what they write. Photographers can do requests, filmographers can naturally have rights to first showcasing.
  - ge0rg 9y ago
    Unfortunately, tour tickets are a scarce resource and there is a whole secondary market that makes tickets even more expensive [0]. This is not an argument pro or contra copyright, just another limitation of this approach. [0] http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/features/vianono-how-the-secondary-ticketing-market-is-bleeding-fans-dry-and-the-bands-trying-to-stop-them-a7671351.html http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/featur...
- conanbatt 9y ago
  > I still think you have to give authors and artists a way to make money from their works I understand the sentiment but..why. Why is it necessary. Art and science advanced on its own long before copyright enforcement of any kind. True there are things that are particularly benefited from copyright. But they do so at the expense of something else. It diverts labor to things that later require law enforcement to protect.
sprafa 9y ago
From memory (an Economist artible that I cba to find right now) an economic study found that the ideal copyright limitation to actually stimulate authors to produce protected work was somewhere around - 25 years. We are now at 75 after death of the author or so. So we are at the pure rent seeking stage.

bo1024 9y ago

It's a good question to ask as a thought exercise, especially since so many vested interests don't want you to think about it, and try to condition you not to question it. I think the concept of copyright law is good in lots of ways, but the current copyright laws in the USA are pretty awful. It was originally 20 years, now it's 90+. Lots of old works are being lost or having access denied because they're still under copyright, but nobody is publishing them. Also related: "the war on sharing" https://stallman.org/articles/end-war-on-sharing.html https://stallman.org/articles/end-war-on-sharing.html

mjevans 9y ago

If I had to choose all or none, I'd choose none. Work for hire (producing something to begin with) would still be a thing. For a broader discussion I'd prefer to reference the actual text for the basis of US Copyright. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." With the meaning of those words at the time of their writing: * limited to scientific works * and methods of doing things that have direct industrial benefit. * ONLY by the author/inventor (not corporations) * LIMITED time, I think 5 years is probably plenty and 10 is a maximum. * I like the idea of a short default term, and paying (active effort) for longer renewal. * Consumer protections (trademarks) are a different matter entirely.

abritinthebay 9y ago

No, we wouldn't, but I'd suggest going back to the earlier laws that weren't overreaching like the current ones. In many ways it isn't even about copyright - it's about IP, and that's actually a whole other problem.

dhimes 9y ago

I still think you have to give authors and artists a way to make money from their works, and in principle at least copyright is helpful. But copyright seems to be becoming effectively perpetual and that's not helpful. And the whole scientific publishing bullshit is even worse.

mort96 9y ago
My impression has been that the way bands make money is not from selling their music, because the record company takes most of that money, but rather from going on tours and selling people expensive tickets to experience something which is fundamentally impossible to experience through piracy.
- craftyguy 9y ago
  So you found one niche that suits your argument. What should writers do, throw 'writing concerts'? How about photographers? Filmographers?
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    Writers are not really protected copyright wise...they can always talk and explain and expand on what they write. Photographers can do requests, filmographers can naturally have rights to first showcasing.
- ge0rg 9y ago
  Unfortunately, tour tickets are a scarce resource and there is a whole secondary market that makes tickets even more expensive [0]. This is not an argument pro or contra copyright, just another limitation of this approach. [0] http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/features/vianono-how-the-secondary-ticketing-market-is-bleeding-fans-dry-and-the-bands-trying-to-stop-them-a7671351.html http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/featur...
conanbatt 9y ago
> I still think you have to give authors and artists a way to make money from their works I understand the sentiment but..why. Why is it necessary. Art and science advanced on its own long before copyright enforcement of any kind. True there are things that are particularly benefited from copyright. But they do so at the expense of something else. It diverts labor to things that later require law enforcement to protect.

sprafa 9y ago

From memory (an Economist artible that I cba to find right now) an economic study found that the ideal copyright limitation to actually stimulate authors to produce protected work was somewhere around - 25 years. We are now at 75 after death of the author or so. So we are at the pure rent seeking stage.