6 ms·

…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 t

…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.
dexy 15y ago
Would people still create cave paintings without copyright? Absolutely. Songs? Yes. Books? Fewer, but probably yes. Multi-million dollar movies and games? Absolutely not. Art would still exist, but it would exist much differently than it does today. Free copying does allow for more creative freedom in many respects, though I would argue many of those benefits can already be had through current fair-use practices, which are quite extensive. I've often heard the argument thrown around that "the world could live without another Transformers 2." I don't know if you fall into that camp, but many people really enjoyed that movie. In aggregate they were willing to pay more to see it than ~99.999% of individuals globally produce in a lifetime. If big-budget movies, pop stars, and games cease to exist, other things will surely take their place, but they won't be the same and most media will start to look a lot more like youtube and less like hollywood. Most people probably don't want that. People need incentives to do things. Incentives are probably the second most powerful force in the universe, after compounding interest :), and a lack of them is why communism fails. People are not benevolent. They do derive utility from things other than money, but money is able to coordinate the interests of many individuals from disparate backgrounds under a common goal. Other things can too, and the Linux OS I'm running right now is a testament to that, but Linux can exist in a world with copyright while Transformers 2 most likely cannot. At least not until everybody in the world is a lot richer and making Transformers 2 is a lot easier.
- Anderkent 15y ago
  In a trade between freedom of information and Transformers 3 I will choose the freedom.
  - CJefferson 15y ago
    While you might think that, that is not how you want to argument phrasing to the general public. I am completely sure they would choose Transformers 3.
  - dexy 15y ago
    Freedom of information is only useful to those who can use it. Most people do not gain much from free information, as they can't make money with it and they're not interested in learning from it. They gain more from the entertainment Transformers provides. In the world we on Hacker News live in, freedom of information is much much more valuable than it is to the vast majority of mankind. Because of its value to us, things like open source and wikipedia exist, where people share things freely because everyone benefits so much from that ecosystem. I'm commenting here right now because I benefit from this ecosystem and want to do my part to keep it going. The beauty is, as I said before, that this can all exist in spite of copyright. Louis C.K. can make a ton of money without needing to use DRM or enforce his copyrights. People can choose not to use the system, and do so to great success. But some things require the system to exist, and those things don't need to be sacrificed. Vote with your dollars not by pirating but by supporting content that is open source, or that doesn't use DRM. Pirating more convinces the powers that be that it's a growing problem, supporting content made by people who aren't draconian hoarders of information will encourage more to be open with their content.

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.

dexy 15y ago

Would people still create cave paintings without copyright? Absolutely. Songs? Yes. Books? Fewer, but probably yes. Multi-million dollar movies and games? Absolutely not. Art would still exist, but it would exist much differently than it does today. Free copying does allow for more creative freedom in many respects, though I would argue many of those benefits can already be had through current fair-use practices, which are quite extensive. I've often heard the argument thrown around that "the world could live without another Transformers 2." I don't know if you fall into that camp, but many people really enjoyed that movie. In aggregate they were willing to pay more to see it than ~99.999% of individuals globally produce in a lifetime. If big-budget movies, pop stars, and games cease to exist, other things will surely take their place, but they won't be the same and most media will start to look a lot more like youtube and less like hollywood. Most people probably don't want that. People need incentives to do things. Incentives are probably the second most powerful force in the universe, after compounding interest :), and a lack of them is why communism fails. People are not benevolent. They do derive utility from things other than money, but money is able to coordinate the interests of many individuals from disparate backgrounds under a common goal. Other things can too, and the Linux OS I'm running right now is a testament to that, but Linux can exist in a world with copyright while Transformers 2 most likely cannot. At least not until everybody in the world is a lot richer and making Transformers 2 is a lot easier.

Anderkent 15y ago
In a trade between freedom of information and Transformers 3 I will choose the freedom.
- CJefferson 15y ago
  While you might think that, that is not how you want to argument phrasing to the general public. I am completely sure they would choose Transformers 3.
- dexy 15y ago
  Freedom of information is only useful to those who can use it. Most people do not gain much from free information, as they can't make money with it and they're not interested in learning from it. They gain more from the entertainment Transformers provides. In the world we on Hacker News live in, freedom of information is much much more valuable than it is to the vast majority of mankind. Because of its value to us, things like open source and wikipedia exist, where people share things freely because everyone benefits so much from that ecosystem. I'm commenting here right now because I benefit from this ecosystem and want to do my part to keep it going. The beauty is, as I said before, that this can all exist in spite of copyright. Louis C.K. can make a ton of money without needing to use DRM or enforce his copyrights. People can choose not to use the system, and do so to great success. But some things require the system to exist, and those things don't need to be sacrificed. Vote with your dollars not by pirating but by supporting content that is open source, or that doesn't use DRM. Pirating more convinces the powers that be that it's a growing problem, supporting content made by people who aren't draconian hoarders of information will encourage more to be open with their content.