6 ms·

The biggest issue with copyright today is that the law itself is contemptible, so people do not respect it. Our constitution (for those in the US) allows the g

by tsuraan 17y ago

The biggest issue with copyright today is that the law itself is contemptible, so people do not respect it. Our constitution (for those in the US) allows the government to create a time-limited copyright law, for the purpose of promoting the arts. As it stands today, no work has returned to the public domain in most people's lifetimes, and very few people expect it to happen. Copyright is an agreement between society and creators of art, literature, music, etc. It says that if they will share their creations with society, then society will allow them to profit from that for a time. After that time is up, everybody gets to share the works freely. Society has been granting the artists the monopoly on distribution, but we haven't been getting the ability to share them after a period of time. It's this imbalance that causes people to lose respect for the law. I don't think copyright should be abolished, but I do think it needs to return to its original term, and I believe that retroactive extensions are an abomination against what copyright is supposed to create. I'm not terribly eloquent, but Thomas McCauley was. His words are at http://baens-universe.com/articles/McCauley_copyright http://baens-universe.com/articles/McCauley_copyright .

tptacek 17y ago
What a red herring. That the media industries have distorted the time frames of copyright has nothing to do with the fact that people are rampantly downloading new media over the Internet. The movie industry in particular would be perfectly happy --- overjoyed, in fact --- if they could just get movies locked down within a new release window measured in weeks.
- tsuraan 17y ago
  Laws that breed contempt for themselves won't be followed. If we had a respectable copyright regime, content producers would have a leg to stand on. There will always be scofflaws in any society; the goal is to minimize that behaviour, not to eliminate it. Besides that, what is lost when a penniless student downloads a song? A sale? From a student who has no money? The losses are from people who can afford to make purchases. Those people must be convinced to follow the law, and the essential first step is to make the law something that people can respect.
  - tjr 17y ago
    If one can't afford something, one generally doesn't get it at all.
    - apotheon 17y ago
      Are you aware you just made an argument to the effect of people who can't afford things not representing a loss of revenue when they download it for free?
      - tptacek 17y ago
        I have $3. I can afford a bag of peanut M&Ms, a small bag of goldfish crackers, and a ham sandwich --- but not all three. Therefore, I should get all of those things for free.
        apotheon 17y ago
        If they were freely copyable, and you had a more pressing need for that $3 than any of them, I'd say go for it. If you have to steal them from someone, on the other hand, you should probably refrain from actually taking away their candies, crackers, and sandwiches. Your analogy sucks.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    Your arguments against copyright are so solid that they appear to change with each comment you make. Cory Doctorow may care a lot about Steamboat Willie, but the overwhelming majority of copyright scofflaws do not; they're downloading new release movies and music. What evidence can you present that they're doing this as a statement against the Sonny Bono act? Because you're making an extraordinary claim: that people who are picking up movie torrents from torrent search engines are doing so as a political statement. Your second argument is just as specious. What is lost when a penniless student downloads a song? Not much. What is lost when every penniless student downloads a song? Tens of millions of dollars. Moreover, you have no evidence to present that most downloaders "can't afford" what they're taking, and are thus creating some kind of media social safety net on the P2P networks. People download because technology has, for the time being, made it easier to download than to buy. That simple fact has no bearing on whether it's right to download without buying. A lot of things that clearly need to be illegal (for instance: credit card fraud) have also been made vastly easier by technology.

by tsuraan 17y ago

tptacek 17y ago

What a red herring. That the media industries have distorted the time frames of copyright has nothing to do with the fact that people are rampantly downloading new media over the Internet. The movie industry in particular would be perfectly happy --- overjoyed, in fact --- if they could just get movies locked down within a new release window measured in weeks.

tsuraan 17y ago
Laws that breed contempt for themselves won't be followed. If we had a respectable copyright regime, content producers would have a leg to stand on. There will always be scofflaws in any society; the goal is to minimize that behaviour, not to eliminate it. Besides that, what is lost when a penniless student downloads a song? A sale? From a student who has no money? The losses are from people who can afford to make purchases. Those people must be convinced to follow the law, and the essential first step is to make the law something that people can respect.
- tjr 17y ago
  If one can't afford something, one generally doesn't get it at all.
  - apotheon 17y ago
    Are you aware you just made an argument to the effect of people who can't afford things not representing a loss of revenue when they download it for free?
    - tptacek 17y ago
      I have $3. I can afford a bag of peanut M&Ms, a small bag of goldfish crackers, and a ham sandwich --- but not all three. Therefore, I should get all of those things for free.
      - apotheon 17y ago
        If they were freely copyable, and you had a more pressing need for that $3 than any of them, I'd say go for it. If you have to steal them from someone, on the other hand, you should probably refrain from actually taking away their candies, crackers, and sandwiches. Your analogy sucks.
- tptacek 17y ago
  Your arguments against copyright are so solid that they appear to change with each comment you make. Cory Doctorow may care a lot about Steamboat Willie, but the overwhelming majority of copyright scofflaws do not; they're downloading new release movies and music. What evidence can you present that they're doing this as a statement against the Sonny Bono act? Because you're making an extraordinary claim: that people who are picking up movie torrents from torrent search engines are doing so as a political statement. Your second argument is just as specious. What is lost when a penniless student downloads a song? Not much. What is lost when every penniless student downloads a song? Tens of millions of dollars. Moreover, you have no evidence to present that most downloaders "can't afford" what they're taking, and are thus creating some kind of media social safety net on the P2P networks. People download because technology has, for the time being, made it easier to download than to buy. That simple fact has no bearing on whether it's right to download without buying. A lot of things that clearly need to be illegal (for instance: credit card fraud) have also been made vastly easier by technology.