5 ms·

The reality is that the classical concept of copyright, where it is illegal to make a copy of a covered work without authorization from the rightsholder, cannot

The reality is that the classical concept of copyright, where it is illegal to make a copy of a covered work without authorization from the rightsholder, cannot be enforced in a digital world. The further reality is that people are not motivated by the moral argument that consumer-facing copyright law is an intrinsic good that must be universally respected. Together, this means that no one is going to heed that aspect of copyright law. We have to adapt. There are still plenty of ways to make money on intellectual property, but it's time to just let go of this concept that piracy can or should be fought. It's an outmoded idea that has been shown irrelevant in a world of instantaneous, perfect replicas. Big media is throwing a fit because it doesn't know what else to do and causing all kinds of collateral damage to both legal and technical systems in the process. We need to face facts and just tell them to calm down, grow up, and accept that their old business model doesn't work in the new frontier of widespread content digitization. I think there is still a place for commercial copyright. I think that one can still make a bunch of money selling access to copyrighted material. It's still enforceable and reasonable to sue Studio A if they use content from Studio B in their latest blockbuster without a license. This is much, much different than downloading a movie instead of driving to the rental store. Old media is constantly screwing themselves over by choosing to pour money into legislative influence and lawsuits instead of innovative content delivery platforms that could be bringing in $50+/mo/user. Right now, all that potential revenue is lost because the studios are so busy hoarding their material that often unauthorized channels are the only places that content is easily available. The attempts that have been made suck; the TV people don't want to let go of ads as a revenue stream, prohibitive DRM and lockdown everywhere and on everything, forced to use Flash Player to watch video, forced to use special adapters to access content as desired, etc. It seems these people are just incapable of an objective analysis of the consequences and realities of digitization. Are there any ways we can help inform and create meaningful distinctions, or do we just have to wait until everyone with an irrational attachment to the old tricks of the trade retires?

netcan 14y ago
I'm not sure exactly why, but we have a tendency to tie together three not necessarily connected issues. One is the question of whether there are viable alternative business models complimented by free distribution of traditionally copyright protected content. The second is whether we can sustain copyright in the digital age. The third is the moral questions. People are always mixing and matching from these. Objecting to a morality point with a business one or somesuch. I'll grant that often there are legitimate cross-overs, but a lot of the time its just absurd. If someone thinks copying art is like stealing from someones house, how can you retort with an alternative business model. Would you suggest that if passers by keep stealing oranges from a tree the owner should accept it & try to sell them orange juice subscriptions? If new technology made rape much harder to prevent and prosecute, would we suggest women readjust their sexual expectations? I think copyright is doomed by reality. I think the industries built around copyright will be rattled, resized & otherwise changed but ultimately survive in some new form. I think that copyright infringement is not exactly the same as theft: it's an artificial system of rules that were engineered around a technological & political reality that no longer exist. I also think that the public does not see piracy as morally wrong. These all conveniently unanimous for me. But, they don't have to be. Sometimes conflicts exists. I believe that heroine criminalisation is morally problematic, creates terrible drug crime. I also think that legalization it would probably lead to increased use and associate problem. It's a conflict.
- skymt 14y ago
  It can be relevant to answer the moral question with a business argument because the moral question often has economic underpinnings. The idea that copying is equivalent to theft is based on the idea that pirates would otherwise have bought the work, making piracy an indirect financial loss. Creating a new business model that accommodates piracy with equal or better returns resolves the fundamental moral issue. (Whether that's possible is beyond me, though.) There is, of course, the completely separate moral issue of the rights of artists to control their work. Business arguments are inappropriate there.
  - netcan 14y ago
    Sometimes, but very often it isn't. If copying is equivalent to theft new business model that accommodates piracy with equal or better returns does not solve the moral problem. It solves the business problem. If copying is equivalent to theft, the copyright owner has similar rights to property owners. Can a property owner have his stuff stolen if allowing it gives them some other financial advantage. What about the right to control how their work is sold? What about the right to stop selling? This isn't just theoretical. For example, Prince wants to exercise these rights.
    - cookiecaper 14y ago
      OK, but I don't understand where you're going with this. Some people think digital piracy is bad, maybe even "equivalent to theft" of real world artifacts. Most people familiar with technology don't agree with them. As such, our society is not obliged to grant these unnatural monopolistic "rights". Do you want to argue that copyright is equivalent to theft, or do you just want to point out that people who hold an alternate view of copyright are going to be upset when the laws inevitably catch up with society? Of course, there are some people who are going to be unhappy no matter what happens. I recognize your point that even though the artists feel they are making equivalent or more money than previously, they can still feel wronged when something that is contrary to their concept of copyright occurs. But like I said, I'm not really sure where you intend to go from there.
- 14y ago
gingerjoos 14y ago
> The reality is that the classical concept of copyright, where it is illegal to make a copy of a covered work without authorization from the rightsholder, cannot be enforced in a digital world The laws of classical physics failed us at the micro scale. We had to come up with new ones to handle the changes in forces at that level. The present state of copyright will have to be supplemented or replaced with new laws to handle the scale at which things happen digitally.

netcan 14y ago

I'm not sure exactly why, but we have a tendency to tie together three not necessarily connected issues. One is the question of whether there are viable alternative business models complimented by free distribution of traditionally copyright protected content. The second is whether we can sustain copyright in the digital age. The third is the moral questions. People are always mixing and matching from these. Objecting to a morality point with a business one or somesuch. I'll grant that often there are legitimate cross-overs, but a lot of the time its just absurd. If someone thinks copying art is like stealing from someones house, how can you retort with an alternative business model. Would you suggest that if passers by keep stealing oranges from a tree the owner should accept it & try to sell them orange juice subscriptions? If new technology made rape much harder to prevent and prosecute, would we suggest women readjust their sexual expectations? I think copyright is doomed by reality. I think the industries built around copyright will be rattled, resized & otherwise changed but ultimately survive in some new form. I think that copyright infringement is not exactly the same as theft: it's an artificial system of rules that were engineered around a technological & political reality that no longer exist. I also think that the public does not see piracy as morally wrong. These all conveniently unanimous for me. But, they don't have to be. Sometimes conflicts exists. I believe that heroine criminalisation is morally problematic, creates terrible drug crime. I also think that legalization it would probably lead to increased use and associate problem. It's a conflict.

skymt 14y ago
It can be relevant to answer the moral question with a business argument because the moral question often has economic underpinnings. The idea that copying is equivalent to theft is based on the idea that pirates would otherwise have bought the work, making piracy an indirect financial loss. Creating a new business model that accommodates piracy with equal or better returns resolves the fundamental moral issue. (Whether that's possible is beyond me, though.) There is, of course, the completely separate moral issue of the rights of artists to control their work. Business arguments are inappropriate there.
- netcan 14y ago
  Sometimes, but very often it isn't. If copying is equivalent to theft new business model that accommodates piracy with equal or better returns does not solve the moral problem. It solves the business problem. If copying is equivalent to theft, the copyright owner has similar rights to property owners. Can a property owner have his stuff stolen if allowing it gives them some other financial advantage. What about the right to control how their work is sold? What about the right to stop selling? This isn't just theoretical. For example, Prince wants to exercise these rights.
  - cookiecaper 14y ago
    OK, but I don't understand where you're going with this. Some people think digital piracy is bad, maybe even "equivalent to theft" of real world artifacts. Most people familiar with technology don't agree with them. As such, our society is not obliged to grant these unnatural monopolistic "rights". Do you want to argue that copyright is equivalent to theft, or do you just want to point out that people who hold an alternate view of copyright are going to be upset when the laws inevitably catch up with society? Of course, there are some people who are going to be unhappy no matter what happens. I recognize your point that even though the artists feel they are making equivalent or more money than previously, they can still feel wronged when something that is contrary to their concept of copyright occurs. But like I said, I'm not really sure where you intend to go from there.
14y ago

gingerjoos 14y ago

> The reality is that the classical concept of copyright, where it is illegal to make a copy of a covered work without authorization from the rightsholder, cannot be enforced in a digital world The laws of classical physics failed us at the micro scale. We had to come up with new ones to handle the changes in forces at that level. The present state of copyright will have to be supplemented or replaced with new laws to handle the scale at which things happen digitally.