5 ms·

It's also worth noting that copyright law is not something that encapsulates the kind of deep wisdom that only age produces. Indeed, the very new and deeply int

by alexqgb 15y ago

It's also worth noting that copyright law is not something that encapsulates the kind of deep wisdom that only age produces. Indeed, the very new and deeply intractable problem of the law vs. reality is that in the digital world, anything you do involves copies. Suddenly, there’s no part of human intellectual activity that’s outside copyright regulation. If anything, wisdom regards this with horror. The current, and notoriously short-sighted beneficiaries of the copyright cartel see this as a good thing, as it appears to hand them a massive (and totally unearned) expansion of their power. The (mostly young) people who are most exposed to this hubris display a reassuringly mature recognition of this badness, and resist accordingly. Good government (i.e. government of, by, and for the people) would avoid open conflict by adjusting the law to the benefit of the people's constitutional liberties, challenging the old commercial order to adapt peacefully or die gracefully. The fact that this isn't happening is de facto evidence of growing corruption. If anything, the wisdom of age makes this less - not more - tolerable as time goes by. After all, there is no precedent (at least in America) that suggests a system providing total domination over all aspects of cultural and intellectual is a good and worthwhile thing. Indeed, much of America's involvement in the 20th Century revolved around violent opposition to the horrific and miserable places that did try to institute this level of control. Today, we're discovering that we can't even be 'friends' with countries that behave like this (Exhibit A: Egypt), since majorities everywhere find these orders deeply hateful, rendering them inherently unstable. Indeed, no modern totalitarian regime has survived for more than a few decades, let alone the lifetimes that democratic republics boast.

scott_s 15y ago
As a contrary point, when I was 18 I thought nothing of going on Napster and downloading every song I wanted to hear. Five or so years later I found I was uncomfortable with doing something like that and stopped doing even casual pirating. Not really as a rule, but because the act made me feel morally uncomfortable. In the intervening years I had thought more about the issues of compensation and false feelings of entitlement. Please don't confuse this with endorsing the draconian punishments heaped on people who infringe on copyrighted works.
sesqu 15y ago
Laws in general seem to mostly ignore volunteer work, despite that having always been an essential part of community economies. That's just an area that hasn't sprouted many conflicts. It seems to me that the new change is that suddenly, discovery and dissemination are enjoying large-scale volunteer effects, where previously it was just word of mouth. The pre-existing laws presume to deal with for-profit redistributors, and as such are hardly applicable. The burning question in my mind is whether the volunteering will persist and suffice to meet the offering of the distribution business. Will it result in a karma economy, or will there be a new business area in archival? Will people tire of providing free service when they find themselves preoccupied with the worries of middle age, or will they merely scale back?
michaeljsouth 15y ago
I think a lot of the new anti-intellectual property thinking is deeply flawed in that it seems to ignore a huge elephant in the room, which is that participation in the copyright regime is voluntary. If you don't like the license don't use the product. You can do this. What is happening now is that there are all sorts of compelling things floating around that were only ever produced because the producer understood that he would be able to profit off of it (because the law would stop people from being able to simply take the results of his effort without paying. Kids say "Hey I like that...but wait, I don't want to pay for it...oh, look it's digital so it's easy to take ...[insert some inexplicable leap of logic]... it must be moral to take it, too." Yeah, I think a lot of us do grow out of that, actually. You think the Lord of the Rings movies would ever have been made without copyright law? What Kinsella is arguing is that we have no business setting up rules such that a project like that can be economically feasible. (That, I suspect, is likely because Kinsella is an anarchist. He realizes that his preferred system of government (that is, absence thereof) could not support IP; ergo, one must argue that IP is not a desired thing, cuz it sure ain't going to exist in utopia.) It seems really poorly thought out. If you want copyright-free material, produce it! If you object to copyrighted material, don't consume it! If you're right about it being abhorrent in the digital age, then let all the abhorrers not buy it. It's so easy to just opt out. If you buy Kinsella's argument, you don't need anything to change about the laws. Just don't participate in the copyright regime. If you really believe in his theory, the moral thing to do is boycott it all. If you say you believe in Kinsella's theory, but go ahead and copy and use stuff the author thought he was going to get paid for, it seem really, really likely to me that what you're really doing is just using intellectual blather to salve your looter conscience.
- chopsueyar 15y ago
  Even with copyright law, Lord of the Rings was almost not made. Trouble struck when Marty Katz was sent to New Zealand. Spending four months there, he told Miramax that the films were more likely to cost $150 million, and with Miramax unable to finance this, and with $15 million already spent, they decided to merge the two films into one. On 17 June 1998, Bob Weinstein presented a treatment of a single two-hour film version of the book. He suggested cutting Bree and the Battle of Helm's Deep, "losing or using" Saruman, merging Rohan and Gondor with Éowyn as Boromir's sister, shortening Rivendell and Moria as well as having Ents prevent the Uruk-hai kidnapping Merry and Pippin.[9] Upset by the idea of "cutting out half the good stuff"[10] Jackson balked, and Miramax declared that any script or work completed by Weta Workshop was theirs.[9] Jackson went around Hollywood for four weeks,[10] showing a thirty-five minute video of their work, before meeting with Mark Ordesky of New Line Cinema.[11] At New Line Cinema, Robert Shaye viewed the video, and then asked why they were making two films when the book was published as three volumes; he wanted to make a film trilogy. Now Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens had to write three new scripts. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings_film_trilogy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings_film_tril...] And because of copyright law, we now have a shitty screen version of Atlas Shrugged that takes place in the future? C'mon! I am not advocating abolition, only reform. I am not sure it is even possible to create copyright-free material in the United States. The producer of the content would be required to explicitly waive copyright.

by alexqgb 15y ago

scott_s 15y ago

As a contrary point, when I was 18 I thought nothing of going on Napster and downloading every song I wanted to hear. Five or so years later I found I was uncomfortable with doing something like that and stopped doing even casual pirating. Not really as a rule, but because the act made me feel morally uncomfortable. In the intervening years I had thought more about the issues of compensation and false feelings of entitlement. Please don't confuse this with endorsing the draconian punishments heaped on people who infringe on copyrighted works.

sesqu 15y ago

Laws in general seem to mostly ignore volunteer work, despite that having always been an essential part of community economies. That's just an area that hasn't sprouted many conflicts. It seems to me that the new change is that suddenly, discovery and dissemination are enjoying large-scale volunteer effects, where previously it was just word of mouth. The pre-existing laws presume to deal with for-profit redistributors, and as such are hardly applicable. The burning question in my mind is whether the volunteering will persist and suffice to meet the offering of the distribution business. Will it result in a karma economy, or will there be a new business area in archival? Will people tire of providing free service when they find themselves preoccupied with the worries of middle age, or will they merely scale back?

michaeljsouth 15y ago

I think a lot of the new anti-intellectual property thinking is deeply flawed in that it seems to ignore a huge elephant in the room, which is that participation in the copyright regime is voluntary. If you don't like the license don't use the product. You can do this. What is happening now is that there are all sorts of compelling things floating around that were only ever produced because the producer understood that he would be able to profit off of it (because the law would stop people from being able to simply take the results of his effort without paying. Kids say "Hey I like that...but wait, I don't want to pay for it...oh, look it's digital so it's easy to take ...[insert some inexplicable leap of logic]... it must be moral to take it, too." Yeah, I think a lot of us do grow out of that, actually. You think the Lord of the Rings movies would ever have been made without copyright law? What Kinsella is arguing is that we have no business setting up rules such that a project like that can be economically feasible. (That, I suspect, is likely because Kinsella is an anarchist. He realizes that his preferred system of government (that is, absence thereof) could not support IP; ergo, one must argue that IP is not a desired thing, cuz it sure ain't going to exist in utopia.) It seems really poorly thought out. If you want copyright-free material, produce it! If you object to copyrighted material, don't consume it! If you're right about it being abhorrent in the digital age, then let all the abhorrers not buy it. It's so easy to just opt out. If you buy Kinsella's argument, you don't need anything to change about the laws. Just don't participate in the copyright regime. If you really believe in his theory, the moral thing to do is boycott it all. If you say you believe in Kinsella's theory, but go ahead and copy and use stuff the author thought he was going to get paid for, it seem really, really likely to me that what you're really doing is just using intellectual blather to salve your looter conscience.

chopsueyar 15y ago
Even with copyright law, Lord of the Rings was almost not made. Trouble struck when Marty Katz was sent to New Zealand. Spending four months there, he told Miramax that the films were more likely to cost $150 million, and with Miramax unable to finance this, and with $15 million already spent, they decided to merge the two films into one. On 17 June 1998, Bob Weinstein presented a treatment of a single two-hour film version of the book. He suggested cutting Bree and the Battle of Helm's Deep, "losing or using" Saruman, merging Rohan and Gondor with Éowyn as Boromir's sister, shortening Rivendell and Moria as well as having Ents prevent the Uruk-hai kidnapping Merry and Pippin.[9] Upset by the idea of "cutting out half the good stuff"[10] Jackson balked, and Miramax declared that any script or work completed by Weta Workshop was theirs.[9] Jackson went around Hollywood for four weeks,[10] showing a thirty-five minute video of their work, before meeting with Mark Ordesky of New Line Cinema.[11] At New Line Cinema, Robert Shaye viewed the video, and then asked why they were making two films when the book was published as three volumes; he wanted to make a film trilogy. Now Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens had to write three new scripts. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings_film_trilogy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings_film_tril...] And because of copyright law, we now have a shitty screen version of Atlas Shrugged that takes place in the future? C'mon! I am not advocating abolition, only reform. I am not sure it is even possible to create copyright-free material in the United States. The producer of the content would be required to explicitly waive copyright.