4 ms·

> Granting the creator such rights takes them away from everyone else. Why is that justified? Why should one person, the creator, be able to tell other people w

> Granting the creator such rights takes them away from everyone else. Why is that justified? Why should one person, the creator, be able to tell other people what they can and cannot do? Then the alternative is that all creators keep their output to themselves and people with this entitled attitude never get to make use of their work. Or maybe they don't make something at all. Or maybe they don't even try to learn to make something and get a "real" job because anything they would create is no longer able to buy them lunch. There are people who want to give works away free and for them that's great but what gives any of us the rights to something someone else has made? It's one thing to come across a piece of work legitimately and then be able to do as you please with it. The music industry is an easy target and even I have a hard time defending them. What about software though? A lot of us here make our living partly due to the protections of copyright. It's one thing to circumvent Apple or Microsoft and pirate some software but what about the indie developer? That guy can't make up the costs with live performances like other types of creators. You either pay for a copy or you don't. If one copy gets bought and 500 get pirated then that guy just got royally screwed. Not all software lends itself to free downloads with paid support. Not all software can be SaaS. So what then? Even open source developers have day jobs. You can't live on PayPal donations and Flattrs. This whole anti-copyright argument sounds wonderful but the world isn't ready yet. Maybe in another 20 years. The answer isn't to get rid of copyright, the answer is to scale it back to a point where it's more sane.

angersock 15y ago
Why is it that the folks defending copyright always pull out the "But then creators will take their balls and go home!" card? That's such a repugnant, faithless argument. Numerous examples exist of people creating in spite of the system--and even making a living doing the same! So, the entire issue for indie developers (of whose ranks I count myself a member) can be solved by not making a product until you confirm that it is wanted (i.e., pay me while I develop it, then do whatever). Alternately, you leave the creation of games (which have little to no lasting value) to be works of art, and let the artists and hobbyists make them for whatever living they can eke out. Entertainment as an industry, much less a secure one, is a silly idea. You can't live on PayPal donations Tell that to the guys from Wolfire, or Notch. I'm sure they'll want to know--they've been doing it for years, and would be upset to find out that they can't make a living that way. This whole anti-copyright argument sounds wonderful but the world isn't ready yet. Maybe in another 20 years. The answer isn't to get rid of copyright, the answer is to scale it back to a point where it's more sane. There is no magical time where the switch will be flipped and the world will embrace and move post copyright. Better we solve this--now--then wait until our infrastructure and freedoms are attacked. Before drastic measures such as breaking core parts of the interne--oh, huh, welp. There is no sane part to copyright. None. It's madness. It is saying that we must artificially introduce scarcity onto things that can be duplicated freely--that's mad!
- txxxxd 15y ago
  > "Why is it that the folks defending copyright always pull out the "But then creators will take their balls and go home!" card? That's such a repugnant, faithless argument. Numerous examples exist of people creating in spite of the system--and even making a living doing the same!" Your logic is faulty - just because some people will continue to create in spite of the system does not mean all can continue to. Yes, indie game developers can continue to make games, but what about larger undertakings? You can't spend millions of dollars and employ large teams to devote themselves fully to creating a game like, say, Diablo 3, without some way to support those deveopers, artists, etc. A world with only indie games is less rich than a world with both indie and commercial games. > "Tell that to the guys from Wolfire, or Notch. I'm sure they'll want to know--they've been doing it for years, and would be upset to find out that they can't make a living that way." I'm not following this argument. Both Wolfire and Mojang (Notch's company) sell games. They also provide free demos but their primary income comes from selling copyrighted works, not donations.
  - angersock 15y ago
    If the market evolves to not sustain AAA games, thems the breaks. I'm not following this argument. Both Wolfire and Mojang (Notch's company) sell games. They also provide free demos but their primary income comes from selling copyrighted works, not donations. So, to a point, they are effectively living off "donations" until they ship 1.0, right? Preorders are effectively donations to continue development.
    - jiggy2011 15y ago
      afaik, pre-orders give you access to the "beta" version which is still very playable and will also give you access to the finished version when it is done. All you get for free is an older version where you cannot do multiplayer or save your game. Basically a demo.
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  Not all creators take their balls and go home. But enough will for it to be notable. Yes, there are those who will either deal with piracy and those who will give away their work freely. Those people will never go away but in a world without copyright we may not have had a Steve Jobs or a Bill Gates to play such a crucial role in the development of products we all use and love. I'm sure someone else may have created them but who's to say their version would be as good? I love FOSS software but I have to say I'm not going to pretend that all Open Source alternatives to copyrighted software are just as good. There's a lot to be said for the polish that comes from being funded. It's about business and it's no secret. The big evil companies make these polished products that are more enjoyable to use because they make money And are able to make money because they enforce the copyright on their work as much as they can. I also like local indie bands. I know a lot of them have a lot of their music too. It's true that they make most of their money touring and they give away a lot of their music for exposure free. But guess what? As great as their music is their records lack the polish that a major label album has and it quite frankly hurts them. Your solution for indie developers sounds extremely far fetched and idealistic. "I'm developing software that does X, Y, and Z. If you like how that sounds then pay me before it's finished and then if I ever do finish it you'd better hope it lives up to what I said it would do. It's okay if it turns out to be garbage because you get to do whatever you want with it once I give it to you"? That doesn't scale. You're paying for what the software does for you, not for the actual software itself. It's a form of paying for a service. Some of the cost is for development but the core of what you pay is for the value you derive from it. Ideally there's a free trial and you see if you like it. Then you decide whether the cost lines up with what you're willing to pay based on the value you derive from it. In the end you're free to go elsewhere if it doesn't line up. It's a great system for all parties. I don't play any games but I do enjoy music and movies. The idea that entertainment as an industry being silly isn't relevant. We're talking about opinions here so I don't want to totally discount yours but I think it makes perfect sense for entertainment to be an industry. That's the nature of capitalism. Anything can become an industry if you set it up right. You can say the same of any industry but if that became the norm than business as we know it would cease to exist and everything would be a hobby. That sounds like entitlement. Like saying "I should be able to see movies, plays, concerts, etc. free because that's just a hobby and they should go get real jobs". Living off donations can work I'll admit but it doesn't scale. Creators should be able to set the price for their work just as consumers should not be forced to pay for anything. But if you're not paying the creator what he asks then you aren't entitled to set his price or take it free. The market does that. I know there will never be a right time for this just like anything but realistically we're not even close to being set up for such a switch. While I disagree with you right now and I think your position is a little extreme I have to say that the work of people like you will get us to a point where that switch may become a real possibility. I'd argue instead for everyone to agree on some middle ground but whichever way things go I will abide. There is a sanity to copyright. There are competing interests between creators and consumers. That's part of what makes the market. Frankly, I'm surprised that people are defending only one side of this since we are all both creators and consumers. We can't give consumers all the rights and leave creators with no control of their works but we also can't give creators so much control that they seriously impede on the rights of consumers. A lot of the rhetoric surrounding this seems to be focused on copyright but what I see is an anti-business position. We can't let ourselves go to extremes in the name of freedom or in the name of business as either would be an unjust crusade. Instead of chopping off our heads to cure a headache lets try to deal with specific issues. Abolishing copyright hurts us as much as letting copyright extend beyond its current state. The biggest issue I see is the distribution issue. We need to come to some agreement on what is legal when it comes to "sharing" among other things. I'm not in favor of SOPA or it's relatives. I think copyright has become a monster. But I still support the idea, not the implementation. For a community that benefits from copyright so much I don't understand why so many are taking such an extreme position. I'd rather see us be more moderate. It's more same to call for shorter copyright terms and such than to get rid of it. When people argue about middle men screwing over artists and consumers we should be finding a way to either get rid of middle men or curb their power without totally obliterating copyright. Copyright can serve to keep works free just as much as it can restrict freedoms and most people forget that. Artists should get together and unionize for a higher cut of profits. I wonder what would happen if record labels were fair to their artists. Would all the people bragging that they're pirates because it's morally wrong for labels to pay such a pittance still use that argument or has it just been a petty excuse all along? I get the feeling that a lot (but not all) of these "freedom fighting pirates" are doing things for their own self interest and not for any moral reasons at all. So I disagree still. I'm not one to stubbornly hold an opinion to be right. So I'm interested to learn more but i think this position isn't just one position but part of a package deal that comes with an entire worldview that I don't understand.
vidarh 15y ago
> Then the alternative is that all creators keep their output to themselves That is provably not the case: People still published written works, performed plays and music for thousands of years before copyright laws were introduced. Even today, there are vast numbers of novels, movie clips, songs etc. being made available freely. The alternative is that SOME creators keep their output to themselves. The vast majority of creators are not being paid to create their content. Now, if you want to make a claim that the works created by the ones that would keep their output to themselves are more important to society, then that's a claim that is not as easily refutable, and it'd even be possible you're right, depending on how one measures importance of a work.

angersock 15y ago

Why is it that the folks defending copyright always pull out the "But then creators will take their balls and go home!" card? That's such a repugnant, faithless argument. Numerous examples exist of people creating in spite of the system--and even making a living doing the same! So, the entire issue for indie developers (of whose ranks I count myself a member) can be solved by not making a product until you confirm that it is wanted (i.e., pay me while I develop it, then do whatever). Alternately, you leave the creation of games (which have little to no lasting value) to be works of art, and let the artists and hobbyists make them for whatever living they can eke out. Entertainment as an industry, much less a secure one, is a silly idea. You can't live on PayPal donations Tell that to the guys from Wolfire, or Notch. I'm sure they'll want to know--they've been doing it for years, and would be upset to find out that they can't make a living that way. This whole anti-copyright argument sounds wonderful but the world isn't ready yet. Maybe in another 20 years. The answer isn't to get rid of copyright, the answer is to scale it back to a point where it's more sane. There is no magical time where the switch will be flipped and the world will embrace and move post copyright. Better we solve this--now--then wait until our infrastructure and freedoms are attacked. Before drastic measures such as breaking core parts of the interne--oh, huh, welp. There is no sane part to copyright. None. It's madness. It is saying that we must artificially introduce scarcity onto things that can be duplicated freely--that's mad!

txxxxd 15y ago
> "Why is it that the folks defending copyright always pull out the "But then creators will take their balls and go home!" card? That's such a repugnant, faithless argument. Numerous examples exist of people creating in spite of the system--and even making a living doing the same!" Your logic is faulty - just because some people will continue to create in spite of the system does not mean all can continue to. Yes, indie game developers can continue to make games, but what about larger undertakings? You can't spend millions of dollars and employ large teams to devote themselves fully to creating a game like, say, Diablo 3, without some way to support those deveopers, artists, etc. A world with only indie games is less rich than a world with both indie and commercial games. > "Tell that to the guys from Wolfire, or Notch. I'm sure they'll want to know--they've been doing it for years, and would be upset to find out that they can't make a living that way." I'm not following this argument. Both Wolfire and Mojang (Notch's company) sell games. They also provide free demos but their primary income comes from selling copyrighted works, not donations.
- angersock 15y ago
  If the market evolves to not sustain AAA games, thems the breaks. I'm not following this argument. Both Wolfire and Mojang (Notch's company) sell games. They also provide free demos but their primary income comes from selling copyrighted works, not donations. So, to a point, they are effectively living off "donations" until they ship 1.0, right? Preorders are effectively donations to continue development.
  - jiggy2011 15y ago
    afaik, pre-orders give you access to the "beta" version which is still very playable and will also give you access to the finished version when it is done. All you get for free is an older version where you cannot do multiplayer or save your game. Basically a demo.
billpatrianakos 15y ago
Not all creators take their balls and go home. But enough will for it to be notable. Yes, there are those who will either deal with piracy and those who will give away their work freely. Those people will never go away but in a world without copyright we may not have had a Steve Jobs or a Bill Gates to play such a crucial role in the development of products we all use and love. I'm sure someone else may have created them but who's to say their version would be as good? I love FOSS software but I have to say I'm not going to pretend that all Open Source alternatives to copyrighted software are just as good. There's a lot to be said for the polish that comes from being funded. It's about business and it's no secret. The big evil companies make these polished products that are more enjoyable to use because they make money And are able to make money because they enforce the copyright on their work as much as they can. I also like local indie bands. I know a lot of them have a lot of their music too. It's true that they make most of their money touring and they give away a lot of their music for exposure free. But guess what? As great as their music is their records lack the polish that a major label album has and it quite frankly hurts them. Your solution for indie developers sounds extremely far fetched and idealistic. "I'm developing software that does X, Y, and Z. If you like how that sounds then pay me before it's finished and then if I ever do finish it you'd better hope it lives up to what I said it would do. It's okay if it turns out to be garbage because you get to do whatever you want with it once I give it to you"? That doesn't scale. You're paying for what the software does for you, not for the actual software itself. It's a form of paying for a service. Some of the cost is for development but the core of what you pay is for the value you derive from it. Ideally there's a free trial and you see if you like it. Then you decide whether the cost lines up with what you're willing to pay based on the value you derive from it. In the end you're free to go elsewhere if it doesn't line up. It's a great system for all parties. I don't play any games but I do enjoy music and movies. The idea that entertainment as an industry being silly isn't relevant. We're talking about opinions here so I don't want to totally discount yours but I think it makes perfect sense for entertainment to be an industry. That's the nature of capitalism. Anything can become an industry if you set it up right. You can say the same of any industry but if that became the norm than business as we know it would cease to exist and everything would be a hobby. That sounds like entitlement. Like saying "I should be able to see movies, plays, concerts, etc. free because that's just a hobby and they should go get real jobs". Living off donations can work I'll admit but it doesn't scale. Creators should be able to set the price for their work just as consumers should not be forced to pay for anything. But if you're not paying the creator what he asks then you aren't entitled to set his price or take it free. The market does that. I know there will never be a right time for this just like anything but realistically we're not even close to being set up for such a switch. While I disagree with you right now and I think your position is a little extreme I have to say that the work of people like you will get us to a point where that switch may become a real possibility. I'd argue instead for everyone to agree on some middle ground but whichever way things go I will abide. There is a sanity to copyright. There are competing interests between creators and consumers. That's part of what makes the market. Frankly, I'm surprised that people are defending only one side of this since we are all both creators and consumers. We can't give consumers all the rights and leave creators with no control of their works but we also can't give creators so much control that they seriously impede on the rights of consumers. A lot of the rhetoric surrounding this seems to be focused on copyright but what I see is an anti-business position. We can't let ourselves go to extremes in the name of freedom or in the name of business as either would be an unjust crusade. Instead of chopping off our heads to cure a headache lets try to deal with specific issues. Abolishing copyright hurts us as much as letting copyright extend beyond its current state. The biggest issue I see is the distribution issue. We need to come to some agreement on what is legal when it comes to "sharing" among other things. I'm not in favor of SOPA or it's relatives. I think copyright has become a monster. But I still support the idea, not the implementation. For a community that benefits from copyright so much I don't understand why so many are taking such an extreme position. I'd rather see us be more moderate. It's more same to call for shorter copyright terms and such than to get rid of it. When people argue about middle men screwing over artists and consumers we should be finding a way to either get rid of middle men or curb their power without totally obliterating copyright. Copyright can serve to keep works free just as much as it can restrict freedoms and most people forget that. Artists should get together and unionize for a higher cut of profits. I wonder what would happen if record labels were fair to their artists. Would all the people bragging that they're pirates because it's morally wrong for labels to pay such a pittance still use that argument or has it just been a petty excuse all along? I get the feeling that a lot (but not all) of these "freedom fighting pirates" are doing things for their own self interest and not for any moral reasons at all. So I disagree still. I'm not one to stubbornly hold an opinion to be right. So I'm interested to learn more but i think this position isn't just one position but part of a package deal that comes with an entire worldview that I don't understand.

vidarh 15y ago

> Then the alternative is that all creators keep their output to themselves That is provably not the case: People still published written works, performed plays and music for thousands of years before copyright laws were introduced. Even today, there are vast numbers of novels, movie clips, songs etc. being made available freely. The alternative is that SOME creators keep their output to themselves. The vast majority of creators are not being paid to create their content. Now, if you want to make a claim that the works created by the ones that would keep their output to themselves are more important to society, then that's a claim that is not as easily refutable, and it'd even be possible you're right, depending on how one measures importance of a work.