7 ms·

Why Do Copyright Monopolists Think They Can Just Take Somebody Else’s Work?

11 points by fraqed 14y ago

ams6110 14y ago
OP is arguing against the ability to sell a "license to use" as opposed to selling ownership interest. To say that any sale must transfer ownership would pretty much render moot the whole concept of copyright and patent.
- rvkennedy 14y ago
  The clue is in the name: the person who owns the "copyright" is the one who has the right to copy it. This has been the case since the Licensing of the Press Act of 1662, so we shouldn't be shocked by it. You can't transfer ownership of the IP to the Avengers Movie, because only one person or entity at a time can own it. That's why for example, we license software as developers, instead of selling it to the end user.
  - taproot 14y ago
    If transfer of ownership never takes place, then why do they keep trying to call it theft? Sorry, couldn't help myself.
    - utilitron 14y ago
      You are thinking of larceny. If you had an idea for a product and told me about it, and I then took that idea and used it. That would still be theft. It wasn't MY idea. Theft can exist as a metaphysical object. The theft in question is production/distribution rights.
stch2 14y ago
So what is the ideal scenario, in the author's mind, for how creative work should be compensated? Let's say I wrote a book, and I want to get compensated for the time I spent writing the book. In his ideal world, I would ____________ ? My impression from the article is I would sell one copy to one person, that person, or future recipients of a copy, would copy it for every single other person that might want to read it, and then I would just wait and pray for donations. Am I misinterpreting his article?
- Falkvinge 14y ago
  How shall the artists get paid? http://falkvinge.net/2011/01/31/how-shall-the-artists-get-paid/ http://falkvinge.net/2011/01/31/how-shall-the-artists-get-pa... Cheers, Rick
  - stch2 14y ago
    1. "Not my problem" 3. "They'll figure it out" 4. "Not my problem" 5. "They'll figure it out" The only legitimate argument I'm seeing there is point (2), and even then, all you're saying is that in absolute dollars the music industry is generating more profit -- ignoring population growth, accessibility to more music (iTunes, Amazon music), etc. -- so it's very hard to say whether the music industry profits grew despite piracy, because of piracy, or independent of piracy. I'm sorry, but that's extremely unconvincing. Given the article in the OP and this reply, I can't really see the difference between your current viewpoint and pure selfishness/FYGM.
    - taproot 14y ago
      I think we agree on a few of those points, #4 however, worries me dearly. Did you even read it? But even if all of this were not so, even if artists were indeed suffering (which they aren’t, but parasitic middlemen are), copyright would still need to be scaled back. It is now infringing on fundamental rights, and as a European citizen, I’m not prepared to give up those citizens’ rights for a multinational corporation to boost their profit. In the 21st century, the Internet IS speech, IS assembly, IS association and IS the press. If a corporation can’t sustain a business without having these rights limited, then that corporation deserves to go out of business. The sooner the better. And in regards to this: > so it's very hard to say whether the music industry profits grew despite piracy, because of piracy, or independent of piracy. This has been covered countless times, piracy, has a huge, and known, positive effect on sales to music and movies. http://torrentfreak.com/why-most-artists-profit-from-piracy/ http://torrentfreak.com/why-most-artists-profit-from-piracy/ http://torrentfreak.com/file-sharers-buy-more-movies-121018/ http://torrentfreak.com/file-sharers-buy-more-movies-121018/ http://torrentfreak.com/file-sharers-buy-30-more-music-than-non-p2p-peers-121015/ http://torrentfreak.com/file-sharers-buy-30-more-music-than-... In fact, some studios have been accused of leaking their albums early over P2P to drum up interest. (good luck proving it) http://www.scribd.com/doc/93891327/Hammond-File-Sharing-Leak http://www.scribd.com/doc/93891327/Hammond-File-Sharing-Leak Further to that, try to keep in mind that most of an artists revenue does not come from music sales. http://torrentfreak.com/music-sales-are-just-6-of-average-musicians-income-130114/ http://torrentfreak.com/music-sales-are-just-6-of-average-mu...

11 points by fraqed 14y ago

OP is arguing against the ability to sell a "license to use" as opposed to selling ownership interest. To say that any sale must transfer ownership would pretty much render moot the whole concept of copyright and patent.

rvkennedy 14y ago
The clue is in the name: the person who owns the "copyright" is the one who has the right to copy it. This has been the case since the Licensing of the Press Act of 1662, so we shouldn't be shocked by it. You can't transfer ownership of the IP to the Avengers Movie, because only one person or entity at a time can own it. That's why for example, we license software as developers, instead of selling it to the end user.
- taproot 14y ago
  If transfer of ownership never takes place, then why do they keep trying to call it theft? Sorry, couldn't help myself.
  - utilitron 14y ago
    You are thinking of larceny. If you had an idea for a product and told me about it, and I then took that idea and used it. That would still be theft. It wasn't MY idea. Theft can exist as a metaphysical object. The theft in question is production/distribution rights.

stch2 14y ago

So what is the ideal scenario, in the author's mind, for how creative work should be compensated? Let's say I wrote a book, and I want to get compensated for the time I spent writing the book. In his ideal world, I would ____________ ? My impression from the article is I would sell one copy to one person, that person, or future recipients of a copy, would copy it for every single other person that might want to read it, and then I would just wait and pray for donations. Am I misinterpreting his article?

Falkvinge 14y ago
How shall the artists get paid? http://falkvinge.net/2011/01/31/how-shall-the-artists-get-paid/ http://falkvinge.net/2011/01/31/how-shall-the-artists-get-pa... Cheers, Rick
- stch2 14y ago
  1. "Not my problem" 3. "They'll figure it out" 4. "Not my problem" 5. "They'll figure it out" The only legitimate argument I'm seeing there is point (2), and even then, all you're saying is that in absolute dollars the music industry is generating more profit -- ignoring population growth, accessibility to more music (iTunes, Amazon music), etc. -- so it's very hard to say whether the music industry profits grew despite piracy, because of piracy, or independent of piracy. I'm sorry, but that's extremely unconvincing. Given the article in the OP and this reply, I can't really see the difference between your current viewpoint and pure selfishness/FYGM.
  - taproot 14y ago
    I think we agree on a few of those points, #4 however, worries me dearly. Did you even read it? But even if all of this were not so, even if artists were indeed suffering (which they aren’t, but parasitic middlemen are), copyright would still need to be scaled back. It is now infringing on fundamental rights, and as a European citizen, I’m not prepared to give up those citizens’ rights for a multinational corporation to boost their profit. In the 21st century, the Internet IS speech, IS assembly, IS association and IS the press. If a corporation can’t sustain a business without having these rights limited, then that corporation deserves to go out of business. The sooner the better. And in regards to this: > so it's very hard to say whether the music industry profits grew despite piracy, because of piracy, or independent of piracy. This has been covered countless times, piracy, has a huge, and known, positive effect on sales to music and movies. http://torrentfreak.com/why-most-artists-profit-from-piracy/ http://torrentfreak.com/why-most-artists-profit-from-piracy/ http://torrentfreak.com/file-sharers-buy-more-movies-121018/ http://torrentfreak.com/file-sharers-buy-more-movies-121018/ http://torrentfreak.com/file-sharers-buy-30-more-music-than-non-p2p-peers-121015/ http://torrentfreak.com/file-sharers-buy-30-more-music-than-... In fact, some studios have been accused of leaking their albums early over P2P to drum up interest. (good luck proving it) http://www.scribd.com/doc/93891327/Hammond-File-Sharing-Leak http://www.scribd.com/doc/93891327/Hammond-File-Sharing-Leak Further to that, try to keep in mind that most of an artists revenue does not come from music sales. http://torrentfreak.com/music-sales-are-just-6-of-average-musicians-income-130114/ http://torrentfreak.com/music-sales-are-just-6-of-average-mu...