5 ms·

Unfortunately, I've yet to hear a convincing alternative incentive scheme to that of copyrights and patents. The necessity of copyright and patent law varies wi

by dexy 15y ago

Unfortunately, I've yet to hear a convincing alternative incentive scheme to that of copyrights and patents. The necessity of copyright and patent law varies widely from industry to industry, and the limited expertise (and interest) of legislators keeps them from taking any bold steps adjust the law to better fit the intricate needs of the people (ie, short/no patents in industries that move quickly and communally, like software, and longer patents for industries like pharmaceutical development, that are immensely costly and provide limited network effects to the first mover (a drug's prices decline by 90% in the US when it goes off patent). People view copyright as less essential than patents, but the truth of the matter is that without copyright laws, there would be a significant decline in the production of movies, music, games, and many other costly mediums. Without copyright, I could legally create a competitor to netflix that paid studios nothing and played every movie ever made on any device for close to nothing. I could create a competitor to steam that distributed games and was every bit as useful and integrated, and I'd pay nothing to developers. Even if you think online piracy isn't as big of a problem as studios claim it is (and you'd be very right), the laws that keep it illegal are all that stand between today and a collapse of the content development ecosystem. Even if copyright doesn't maximize for society's benefit because of the monopoly it creates, every copyrighted work sold is a net plus to both the consumer and the producer. Without any copyright framework, there's a significant chance that the producer could never afford to make that beneficial product in the first place. Even if you only eliminate prosecution of people/entities that don't make any money from what they're doing and allow non-profits like wikipedia to host full movies, you still irreparably break the incentive system that exists today. Maybe we don't need new movies and games, but people want them and as long as that's the case they'll want to keep protecting them with copyright. Maybe someday, systems more like kickstarter could replace copyright, but I highly doubt it. They don't do nearly as good of a job. That said, I'm all for much shorter terms for copyrights and the elimination of software patents.

literalusername 15y ago
…without copyright laws, there would be a significant decline in the production of movies, music, games, and many other costly mediums. I disagree. What were talking about here is art, and mankind has been producing art since long before government-guarded IP. It isn't because IP laws provide an incentive that we create things; we do it because it's human nature. The ability to freely copy other people's work lowers the barrier to entry, so eliminating IP laws would spur a creative renaissance. The only downside is those big media companies would be forced to innovate.
- tzs 15y ago
  > The ability to freely copy other people's work lowers the barrier to entry, so eliminating IP laws would spur a creative renaissance You lost me. What would being able to freely copy lower the barrier to entry of? How would it spur a creative renaissance?
  - njs12345 15y ago
    Mashup artists, for example, would be able to use a much greater variety of samples if IP laws were less restrictive.
  - literalusername 15y ago
    To use software as an example, it's much easier to improve upon someone else's work when their work is open source. You fork it and improve it -- much easier than building it from scratch. This process also aids in learning how to write good software, by becoming familiar with other people's techniques. On the other hand, if you're afraid that using someone else's work can result in a huge fine, then you're less likely to do the project at all. If you choose to do it anyway, you'll have a lot more work to do. There is a higher barrier to entry.
    - tzs 15y ago
      Software doesn't really make your point, because eliminating copyright would not make all software open source. In fact, it would most likely cause a shift toward closed source as companies could take open source and use it in closed products without having to release their modified source.
      - literalusername 15y ago
        As much as I want to refute this, I have to admit you have a good point.
- frobozz 15y ago
  "A significant decline", not a total collapse. Prior to IP laws, individuals took matters into their own hands to prevent losses due to plagiarism. I wouldn't be surprised if the removal of legal protection would lead to more ubiquitous and intrusive DRM. That said, one potential advantage is that if content is being produced simply because creation is human nature, rather than because a similar item sold well last year; it could lead to higher quality output.
wisty 15y ago
I hate to sound like a fundamentalist economist, but ... There's a demand for movies. If you cut off the source, fans will make their own. They won't be the same (lower budgets), and their distribution will be different (initially theatres, protected by contracts), and they will have more product placements, but they will still be there. You won't have LOTR, but you will still have low budget talky stuff, suspense thrillers, and so on. Eventually, animation techniques will allow fans to collaboratively make big budget special effect movies. If movie company's wanted, they could survive quite well on theatre takings, and release stuff on DVD simply as collector items (after they movies are leaked online anyway). They would have to make cutbacks, but they'd still survive. The main difference is - what a consumer does in their own home should be sacrosanct. Telling a theatre not to leak a movie (as part of a commercial contract) is fine, but attacking consumers for ripping a DVD they bought is not.
- dexy 15y ago
  There's also a huge demand for flights to the moon. Nobody supplies it because it'd be too expensive. Same thing for a LOTR that you couldn't charge for. Where do you draw the line? Commercial entities? I'm sure I could raise funding for a non-profit that offered every ebook ever written for download. That would single-handedly destroy the ebook industry. I never said movies would go away, but you wouldn't have Transformers and you wouldn't have LOTR. As you said, you'd have movies that are more locked-down in their distribution and you'd have more ads and product placement in films. All for what? So that you can freely share those films to lower your entertainment budget? So that indie films can take more market share because you prefer them? Because copyright law is already largely unenforceable? I'm all for more lax punishment for piracy, lower fines, etc. I'm not for eliminating IP law.
hxa7241 15y ago
> but the truth of the matter is that without copyright laws, there would be a significant decline in the production of movies, music, games, and many other costly mediums It might seem very intuitive to say such things, but it is not truth. The truth is that the economic evidence is just not there. What do Landes & Posner say? "Economic analysis has come up short of providing either theoretical or empirical grounds for assessing the overall effect of intellectual property law on economic welfare." -- 'The economic structure of intellectual property law'; Landes, Posner; 2003. Conclusion, p422, s3. That means we do not know whether it does good overall. Hard to quite believe? Well there it is.
- dexy 15y ago
  Landes & Posner also never advocated abolishing copyrights altogether... They just advocated moving to renewable terms instead of automatic 70 years to life. Regardless of whether there is a decline in production, there would be a certain decline in production of high-quality, expensive content. If you think expensive to produce != high quality, you're wrong. Expensive content is only produced because it earns more money, and thus is better liked by more people. That's the only objective measure of quality I know.

by dexy 15y ago

literalusername 15y ago

…without copyright laws, there would be a significant decline in the production of movies, music, games, and many other costly mediums. I disagree. What were talking about here is art, and mankind has been producing art since long before government-guarded IP. It isn't because IP laws provide an incentive that we create things; we do it because it's human nature. The ability to freely copy other people's work lowers the barrier to entry, so eliminating IP laws would spur a creative renaissance. The only downside is those big media companies would be forced to innovate.

tzs 15y ago
> The ability to freely copy other people's work lowers the barrier to entry, so eliminating IP laws would spur a creative renaissance You lost me. What would being able to freely copy lower the barrier to entry of? How would it spur a creative renaissance?
- njs12345 15y ago
  Mashup artists, for example, would be able to use a much greater variety of samples if IP laws were less restrictive.
- literalusername 15y ago
  To use software as an example, it's much easier to improve upon someone else's work when their work is open source. You fork it and improve it -- much easier than building it from scratch. This process also aids in learning how to write good software, by becoming familiar with other people's techniques. On the other hand, if you're afraid that using someone else's work can result in a huge fine, then you're less likely to do the project at all. If you choose to do it anyway, you'll have a lot more work to do. There is a higher barrier to entry.
  - tzs 15y ago
    Software doesn't really make your point, because eliminating copyright would not make all software open source. In fact, it would most likely cause a shift toward closed source as companies could take open source and use it in closed products without having to release their modified source.
    - literalusername 15y ago
      As much as I want to refute this, I have to admit you have a good point.
frobozz 15y ago
"A significant decline", not a total collapse. Prior to IP laws, individuals took matters into their own hands to prevent losses due to plagiarism. I wouldn't be surprised if the removal of legal protection would lead to more ubiquitous and intrusive DRM. That said, one potential advantage is that if content is being produced simply because creation is human nature, rather than because a similar item sold well last year; it could lead to higher quality output.

wisty 15y ago

I hate to sound like a fundamentalist economist, but ... There's a demand for movies. If you cut off the source, fans will make their own. They won't be the same (lower budgets), and their distribution will be different (initially theatres, protected by contracts), and they will have more product placements, but they will still be there. You won't have LOTR, but you will still have low budget talky stuff, suspense thrillers, and so on. Eventually, animation techniques will allow fans to collaboratively make big budget special effect movies. If movie company's wanted, they could survive quite well on theatre takings, and release stuff on DVD simply as collector items (after they movies are leaked online anyway). They would have to make cutbacks, but they'd still survive. The main difference is - what a consumer does in their own home should be sacrosanct. Telling a theatre not to leak a movie (as part of a commercial contract) is fine, but attacking consumers for ripping a DVD they bought is not.

dexy 15y ago
There's also a huge demand for flights to the moon. Nobody supplies it because it'd be too expensive. Same thing for a LOTR that you couldn't charge for. Where do you draw the line? Commercial entities? I'm sure I could raise funding for a non-profit that offered every ebook ever written for download. That would single-handedly destroy the ebook industry. I never said movies would go away, but you wouldn't have Transformers and you wouldn't have LOTR. As you said, you'd have movies that are more locked-down in their distribution and you'd have more ads and product placement in films. All for what? So that you can freely share those films to lower your entertainment budget? So that indie films can take more market share because you prefer them? Because copyright law is already largely unenforceable? I'm all for more lax punishment for piracy, lower fines, etc. I'm not for eliminating IP law.

hxa7241 15y ago

> but the truth of the matter is that without copyright laws, there would be a significant decline in the production of movies, music, games, and many other costly mediums It might seem very intuitive to say such things, but it is not truth. The truth is that the economic evidence is just not there. What do Landes & Posner say? "Economic analysis has come up short of providing either theoretical or empirical grounds for assessing the overall effect of intellectual property law on economic welfare." -- 'The economic structure of intellectual property law'; Landes, Posner; 2003. Conclusion, p422, s3. That means we do not know whether it does good overall. Hard to quite believe? Well there it is.

dexy 15y ago
Landes & Posner also never advocated abolishing copyrights altogether... They just advocated moving to renewable terms instead of automatic 70 years to life. Regardless of whether there is a decline in production, there would be a certain decline in production of high-quality, expensive content. If you think expensive to produce != high quality, you're wrong. Expensive content is only produced because it earns more money, and thus is better liked by more people. That's the only objective measure of quality I know.