4 ms·

From my part, I believe the very concept of exclusive intellectual property with respect to recorded music has come to a natural end, or something like an end.

From my part, I believe the very concept of exclusive intellectual property with respect to recorded music has come to a natural end, or something like an end. Technology has brought to a head a need to embrace the meaning of the word “release”, as in bird or fart. It is no longer possible to maintain control over digitised material and I don’t believe the public good is served by trying to. It is with this paragraph the Steve's ignorance to the societal and legal foundations around intellectual property and exclusive copyright are brought to full attention. It technically became "no longer possible to maintain control" over intellectual property hundreds of years ago with the invention of the printing press. The idea that the decreasing marginal cost of making copies is somehow a new concept and unique to the digital world is completely absurd. The fact that the copyright system has been abused by corporate interests doesn't mean we should blindly throw out one of the cornerstones of the Western world.

alexvoda 11y ago
Actually you are incorrect in multiple ways. First of all, Steve's article refers strictly to music. I would argue maintaining control was no longer possible since the invention of magnetic tape. If you really want to stretch things, you can go as far back as grooved disks (LPs, Vinyls, gramophone records) and claim it was possible to copy them like so: http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/jan/29/bone-music-soviet-bootleg-records-pressed-on-xrays http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/jan/29/bone-music-sovi... This is at least some hundred of years after the invention of the printing press. As for music scores, see the next paragraph. Secondly, it was never possible to control information represented as glyphs (text, music scores, etc.). People could easily copy such information as long as they knew how to write and had some sort of writing utensil. In fact a person doesn't even need to know how to read in order to copy written or printed information. The more control is exerted the more determined people will be to copy. Thirdly, it was very much possible to control what was printed with a printing press by using the might of an authoritarian regime. Printing presses were not things you could easily hide. Sooner or later the source of unwanted printed content could be tracked down. Besides, the very first copyright like laws were made exactly to avoid such an adversarial situation. The British government offered the publishers the power to control distribution (protected by the government) as long as the government gained control over what was being printed. Also, I don't quite get what you mean by your last sentence.
- williamcotton 11y ago
  Calling a government that enforces a limited monopoly on intellectual property an "authoritarian regime" is quite a stretch. Copyright is a foundation of liberal democracies all over the world. Again, I hold heartedly agree that "it was never possible to control information represented as glyphs". So did the people who dreamed up copyright. That's the whole point! What happened was many hundreds of years ago someone wrote something, and then someone else came along with a printing press and made 1000 copies and sold them for a profit, but they didn't give any money to the guy that wrote it. Someone pointed out that this didn't seem fair or just, and after a bunch of arguments and legislation, copyright was born. The very same arguments about limiting people's freedoms with what they can or can't do with their own printing press have been going on for hundreds of years. It's really boring to keep having to prove the same points.

alexvoda 11y ago

Actually you are incorrect in multiple ways. First of all, Steve's article refers strictly to music. I would argue maintaining control was no longer possible since the invention of magnetic tape. If you really want to stretch things, you can go as far back as grooved disks (LPs, Vinyls, gramophone records) and claim it was possible to copy them like so: http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/jan/29/bone-music-soviet-bootleg-records-pressed-on-xrays http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/jan/29/bone-music-sovi... This is at least some hundred of years after the invention of the printing press. As for music scores, see the next paragraph. Secondly, it was never possible to control information represented as glyphs (text, music scores, etc.). People could easily copy such information as long as they knew how to write and had some sort of writing utensil. In fact a person doesn't even need to know how to read in order to copy written or printed information. The more control is exerted the more determined people will be to copy. Thirdly, it was very much possible to control what was printed with a printing press by using the might of an authoritarian regime. Printing presses were not things you could easily hide. Sooner or later the source of unwanted printed content could be tracked down. Besides, the very first copyright like laws were made exactly to avoid such an adversarial situation. The British government offered the publishers the power to control distribution (protected by the government) as long as the government gained control over what was being printed. Also, I don't quite get what you mean by your last sentence.

williamcotton 11y ago
Calling a government that enforces a limited monopoly on intellectual property an "authoritarian regime" is quite a stretch. Copyright is a foundation of liberal democracies all over the world. Again, I hold heartedly agree that "it was never possible to control information represented as glyphs". So did the people who dreamed up copyright. That's the whole point! What happened was many hundreds of years ago someone wrote something, and then someone else came along with a printing press and made 1000 copies and sold them for a profit, but they didn't give any money to the guy that wrote it. Someone pointed out that this didn't seem fair or just, and after a bunch of arguments and legislation, copyright was born. The very same arguments about limiting people's freedoms with what they can or can't do with their own printing press have been going on for hundreds of years. It's really boring to keep having to prove the same points.