28 ms·
You are not thinking of the harmful effects of copyright. The mechanism of copyright, by definition, is to restrict the flow of information. This is exactly wha
by hxa7241 15y ago
You are not thinking of the harmful effects of copyright. The mechanism of copyright, by definition, is to restrict the flow of information. This is exactly what you do not want in an information economy.
First, because the cost of that restriction is effectively magnified. When information was in paper books, it was difficult to copy. Copyright restricted copies, but since people could not make copies it did not make much difference. But now information is digital the cost of copying is practically zero. That means the restrictions of copyright stops people realising a large benefit that would otherwise be available.
Second, the most vital ingredient in production of new information seems most likely not extra monetary incentive, but other information. And the fact that information is infinitely copyable amplifies its value. A single amount of money can pay for only one piece of information production. But a single amount of information can contribute, through copies, to an unlimited number of pieces of information production.
This is the funny thing. Copyright really only works with products that are substantially non-abstract, non-informational. When you have an economy that really is all informational, copyright does not actually make sense: its intrinsic contradiction just becomes too self-destructive.
- georgieporgie 15y agoThe mechanism of copyright, by definition, is to restrict the flow of information. This is exactly what you do not want in an information economy. Where do you propose that money changes hands in an information-based economy where information is freely copied?
- serichsen 15y agoYou would pay not for copying but for creation. A software developer would be paid for solving new problems or customizing known solutions to them. Pretending to "sell" shrinkwrapped information is stupid nonsense.
- georgieporgie 15y agoOne of the great things about software development is that -- theoretically -- you can do a large amount of work up-front, then receive somewhat passive income by selling that creation. It seems to me that removing that interesting feature of software moves developers closer to what I generally hear described as serfdom, "wage slave", etc. Pretending to "sell" shrinkwrapped information is stupid nonsense. Care to elaborate?
- swombat 15y agoWhile in appearance it may appear that software developers would be harmed if copyright were abolished, I suspect that if that were to happen, software developers would become among the few information creators to get really rich out of it. After all, software is precisely what has helped the information flow faster and better. In a rapidly evolving, copyright-free world, custom software is king.
- tzs 15y agoIf that were correct, wouldn't we already see that effect in the world of free software? It's not quite copyright-free, but it should be close enough.
- Natsu 15y agoLinus Torvalds hasn't done too badly for himself, as far as I know. But if you really want huge profit, you need a model that doesn't rely on copyright, like SaaS. Google got where they are with a combination of the Google Search and AdSense software-based services, neither of which rely on copyright.
- Tyr42 15y agoWhat is code, or application, but information. It's all just bits. Yet I can go to the store and buy photoshop and it comes in a shrinkwrapped box. And I'm okay with that, they but a lot of effort into making that tool, and I don't have the time/skill to make it myself so I will pay them for the time I saved by buying it instead of writing it myself or trying to work in mspaint.
- tzs 15y agoWho should pay for creation? And when should they pay?
- serichsen 15y agoIt is happening right now. Recent example: http://www.indiegogo.com/SBCL-Threading-Improvements-1 http://www.indiegogo.com/SBCL-Threading-Improvements-1
- tzs 15y agoThe flaw in your argument is the failure to consider the possibility that many works would not be available in the first place without copyright. edit: what is up with all the idiotic downvotes in this thread? You are NOT supposed to downvote just because you disagree with an opinion.
- serichsen 15y ago"Oh, I have this great idea that I would love to implement. Nah, if I don't get a copying monopoly on that for years to come, I will not think about it anymore. I want to create once, collect forever! Otherwise I won't do it. Dub de doo. What is on TV tonight?" Do you believe that, really?
- jwatte 15y agoThe problem is that solid products do not come from one guy who works on one idea for a while. It comes from large teams that do all kinds of boring work to make the product solid. As an example, for most users, using Linux on the desktop is a lot more painful than using Windows on the desktop, because Microsoft has to pay a lot of people to do boring work that makes Windows less painful to the user. Linux only gains the features that someone feels it is rewarding to work on. If we don't have copyright, then we have no way of rewarding dull work that only makes economic sense when replicated across millions. Think of the garbage truck: it's dull and smelly work, and you have to get up in the middle of the night. Almost nobody would do that if they didn't get paid. Yet society needs that work done -- yet we figure out how to compensate that work so it gets done. Perhaps we can come up with a better way to compensate this kind of development work, but your argument does not provide a credible alternative.
- michaelchisari 15y agoThink of the garbage truck: it's dull and smelly work, and you have to get up in the middle of the night. And yet, we don't offer garbage men royalties on the garbage they've collected for 70 years after their death.
- 15y ago