US commissions Swedish IP law (WikiLeaks/Pirate Party)

[TheHammer]

That was the whole point of my example, you retarded asshole.

Wouldn't they be in breach of contract? If you wanted to get paid for your work, wouldn't you refuse to sign a contract that did not stipulate payment on the part of the client, right?

Yes he probably would. But he'd have to get a lawyer and sue to assert his rights under that contract. A lot of file sharers tend to get pissed off when copyright holders do that sort of thing...

Now, I'll grant you the penalties for copyright infringment seem way out of bounds from actual harm done in most cases. I think there should be a different set of penalties of infringment for personal use, something closer to the actual cost of a work (with reasonable penalty fees), and infringement with intent to distribute for monetary gain.

IT seems the general argument is that "Piracy actually helps in a lot of cases, so that makes it OK." If someone WANTS to release their works to benefit from said work "going viral" and reap the benefits of fame, fortune etc then that should be their choice. If they want to be complete asses and hoard their work only allowing people to view it for millions of dollars, then that too should be their choice. In a free society, we tend to frown on such choices being taken away...

[ThomasP]

IT seems the general argument is that "Piracy actually helps in a lot of cases, so that makes it OK."

No. This argument conflates the reality of the situation with an attempt at a moral argument, which no one here is making. Saying it's "OK" frames the argument in moral terms, as a right or wrong matter. The reality is that the tools of the Internet -- and perhaps even simpler economic forces of demand -- mean that works will be available to anyone that wants them, barring legal regulation or normative pressures to the contrary. Right or wrong are incidental to this, and in fact it's the attempt at shoehorning the moral "ought" into the "is" that's creating so much friction.

If someone WANTS to release their works to benefit from said work "going viral" and reap the benefits of fame, fortune etc then that should be their choice. If they want to be complete asses and hoard their work only allowing people to view it for millions of dollars, then that too should be their choice. In a free society, we tend to frown on such choices being taken away...

This is an ironically biased view, given that you're only arguing for one particular kind of choice without considering what choices are removed by overly-strong IP laws.

As things are, it's not realistic to expect that you can create a work without it being made available digitally; right and wrong aside, technology has made things that way and it doesn't do much good to complain about rights that were implicit to a system based on physical possession.

The choices are to either live with open file sharing and make it work for you, which is clearly viable, or to enforce property-like regulations on the new system, which is popular because it benefits from tradition, but is probably not ideal for either creators or consumers in the long run (and doesn't appear to work anyway).

[Alyeska]

Well, the question was why? The GTA collection no doubt added other games. Was it a similar situation with Oblivion? Just trying to figure out your motivation.

The GTA collection was pointless and it was misleading. I owned GTA3, Vice City, and San Andreas. That was 3 games spread over 5 disks. The GTA3 collection box advertised itself as PC-DVD. Knowing the relative sizes I figured the games could be crammed into one, maybe 2 DVDs and it was $20, so why not? Only to find out they repackaged the original F*ing disks and so the GTA collection was still 4 CDs and 1 DVD.

I sorta did the same thing with Oblivion. I had bought the original and both expansions. That was 3 disks. So I bought the GOTY version at $20 and it reduced me to 2 disks. Then I had a gift card a year later when they switched to standard DVD packaging and thought what the hell. I ended up gifting both earlier copies of Oblivion to friends anyway.

I bought FEAR twice in the store for similar reasons. Gave the older copy to a friend.

And now with Steam I nab the games I already own on disk when Steam has super sales.

I can think of only 4 games that I actively spent effort to pirate in the last 10 years. Either I downloaded it or took a downloaded copy from a friend. Max Payne, Ghost Recon Island Thunder, GTA3, and Oblivion. I purchased every single one on disk.

Not every download is a lost sale.

[Hamstray]

I'll agree that such policies are problems with software, which often require agreeing to a EULA that you can't see until you've opened the software to use, but why should you be able to get any of your money back just because you didn't like the product? I can see if there was blatantly false advertising involved, but not liking a product that you've purchased is simply a risk you accept as a consumer.

In a consumer based society the consumer is "the man".

[Wing Commander MAD]

I'll agree that such policies are problems with software, which often require agreeing to a EULA that you can't see until you've opened the software to use, but why should you be able to get any of your money back just because you didn't like the product? I can see if there was blatantly false advertising involved, but not liking a product that you've purchased is simply a risk you accept as a consumer.

In a consumer based society the consumer is "the man".

Huh? You've lost me.

[TheHammer]

IT seems the general argument is that "Piracy actually helps in a lot of cases, so that makes it OK."

No. This argument conflates the reality of the situation with an attempt at a moral argument, which no one here is making. Saying it's "OK" frames the argument in moral terms, as a right or wrong matter. The reality is that the tools of the Internet -- and perhaps even simpler economic forces of demand -- mean that works will be available to anyone that wants them, barring legal regulation or normative pressures to the contrary. Right or wrong are incidental to this, and in fact it's the attempt at shoehorning the moral "ought" into the "is" that's creating so much friction.

On the contrary, MANY people here are making it a moral argument since the legal question tends to fall on the side of it being illegal. They point to studies showing piracy benefiting certain works and artists and hold that up as an example of why its "ok" to pirate media, and that steps to curb said pirating should not be taken.

If someone WANTS to release their works to benefit from said work "going viral" and reap the benefits of fame, fortune etc then that should be their choice. If they want to be complete asses and hoard their work only allowing people to view it for millions of dollars, then that too should be their choice. In a free society, we tend to frown on such choices being taken away...

This is an ironically biased view, given that you're only arguing for one particular kind of choice without considering what choices are removed by overly-strong IP laws.

I'm arguing for the owner of intellectual property to have a choice. I'm not aware of what choices you are referring to having been removed from strong IP laws, aside from the ability to pirate media. Digital distribution has in fact been embraced by music, print, and software industries, and to a growing extent by the movie industry.

As things are, it's not realistic to expect that you can create a work without it being made available digitally; right and wrong aside, technology has made things that way and it doesn't do much good to complain about rights that were implicit to a system based on physical possession.

The choices are to either live with open file sharing and make it work for you, which is clearly viable, or to enforce property-like regulations on the new system, which is popular because it benefits from tradition, but is probably not ideal for either creators or consumers in the long run (and doesn't appear to work anyway).

Copyright laws were never about "physical possession". It was about artists being compensated for reproductions of their work. That is why they exist separate from physical property laws. While I do think they need re-worked for the digital age, with different tiers for "consumption" versus "distribution", I don't think that giving up and declaring open season on all works of media is the answer.

While its not realistic to expect to eliminate all piracy, and industry can't abandon all pretense of fighting it. Doing so would greatly remove the moral and legal ramifications that act as a deterrent, and WOULD negatively impact sales. If you make all of your work "freely available" then you are at best going to capitalize on advertisements, or donations. Many "shareware" type products DO in fact follow that model, whereby you can pay to get "ad-free" versions, or bonus features not available in free release. No doubt this does work for those companies that stay in business. However, I don't think you should force that to be their only choice. As creators of said intellectual policy they should have the choice to make what they feel is the best decision for their company.

[K. A. Pital]

Doing so would greatly remove the moral and legal ramifications that act as a deterrent, and WOULD negatively impact sales.

Sales of what, crap movies which can't make any money at the box office? Or sales of arthouse movies which never expect profitability in the first place and are made as purely lossy projects using funding from the producer/director, etc. generally? Sales of what, crap software which can't make money on service contract because they need to grab money with a bigger shovel, having a dime from every user for service and updates is not enough for them? Sales of what, crap music the performers of which can't make enough money off concerts, or experimental bands which don't expect to earn any money and often offer their music for free just to get "listeners"? Sales of what? Paper books? They're falling anyway, and the price of digital books is rapidly decreasing too, it is quite certain that a lot of great literary works were made without the expectation of monetary return, and if that would be the case for all, that would just weed out those expecting to get rich on books from writer's guilds.

In essence, yes, the American dream of becoming rich via sales of digital objects would be forever lost. But who cares? It is PUBLIC BENEFIT which matters most, right?

[TheHammer]

Doing so would greatly remove the moral and legal ramifications that act as a deterrent, and WOULD negatively impact sales.

Sales of what, crap movies which can't make any money at the box office? Or sales of arthouse movies which never expect profitability in the first place and are made as purely lossy projects using funding from the producer/director, etc. generally? Sales of what, crap software which can't make money on service contract because they need to grab money with a bigger shovel, having a dime from every user for service and updates is not enough for them? Sales of what, crap music the performers of which can't make enough money off concerts, or experimental bands which don't expect to earn any money and often offer their music for free just to get "listeners"? Sales of what? Paper books? They're falling anyway, and the price of digital books is rapidly decreasing too, it is quite certain that a lot of great literary works were made without the expectation of monetary return, and if that would be the case for all, that would just weed out those expecting to get rich on books from writer's guilds.

In essence, yes, the American dream of becoming rich via sales of digital objects would be forever lost. But who cares? It is PUBLIC BENEFIT which matters most, right?

Are we talking about PIRACY here? Or Digital distribution? Because I'm talking about the former, and you seem to be talking about the latter.

Crap movies aren't likely to be widely viewed for the simple reason they are crap. Its the major movies that will see a loss in revenue as people will decide to opt for pizza and a movie at home, rather than spending a little extra and going to the theatre. Not everyone, but enough to have an impact.
The producers of an arthouse film could very well promote their film be distributed on the web. Or they might not because they feel it takes away from their artistic vision. Should be their choice as the copyright holder though should it not? Same with the makers of "crap music" as you say, although if its truly crap, why would people really choose to download it? Experiment band deciding to release their music for free to get exposure? GREAT more power to them. As for written media, not being bound by paper is probably a blessing for many authors. They'd have no need to split any revenue with bookstores or printing companies. But should be their choice right? After all, they created it.

On a side note, ironically its the "crap software" that usually GETS the service contracts because its so finicky, buggy, or hard to deal with that you NEED to have the support to keep it running. Service contracts for software that works as its supposed to tends to be first casuality in a budget crunch.

[ThomasP]

On the contrary, MANY people here are making it a moral argument since the legal question tends to fall on the side of it being illegal. They point to studies showing piracy benefiting certain works and artists and hold that up as an example of why its "ok" to pirate media, and that steps to curb said pirating should not be taken.

Your perception of the argument does not make it thus.

I'm arguing for the owner of intellectual property to have a choice. I'm not aware of what choices you are referring to having been removed from strong IP laws, aside from the ability to pirate media. Digital distribution has in fact been embraced by music, print, and software industries, and to a growing extent by the movie industry.

Strong IP laws remove choices from consumers and from competitors in the market, even a substantial amount of time after the vast majority of income has been made from the work in question. The effect is to lock up culture behind legal barriers -- an act which is explicitly contrary to the purpose of copyright laws.

Copyright laws were never about "physical possession". It was about artists being compensated for reproductions of their work.

You're wrong on both counts, actually. Copyright laws have been suborned into the modern-day free-market religion without much concern for their actual effects on culture, economic output, or historical basis; this is why the latter statement is so often repeated when it's blatantly false.

Copyright law began as a means of encouraging the distribution of works by granting rights to the author for a limited term. You'd need some historical context from early 18th century England to understand the details, but the point being, copyright laws were made so that books would get a wider distribution than offered by the monopolies of the day.

Even US law makes it clear that copyright law is meant to promote the arts and sciences, in effect giving rights to the author rather than the distributor for a limited term -- but this has been transformed into a property right (and hardly of limited term) by industry lobbying, and that state of being is not beneficial for anyone besides those companies.

That individual musicians, artists, and writers have been so brainwashed by the belief that they need strong IP protections, when the landscape makes it clear that the large companies are almost exclusive beneficiaries, is a testament to the reach music and movie industry lobbying.

While its not realistic to expect to eliminate all piracy, and industry can't abandon all pretense of fighting it. Doing so would greatly remove the moral and legal ramifications that act as a deterrent, and WOULD negatively impact sales.

On what do you base this statement?

If you make all of your work "freely available" then you are at best going to capitalize on advertisements, or donations. Many "shareware" type products DO in fact follow that model, whereby you can pay to get "ad-free" versions, or bonus features not available in free release. No doubt this does work for those companies that stay in business. However, I don't think you should force that to be their only choice. As creators of said intellectual policy they should have the choice to make what they feel is the best decision for their company.

You're not quite getting the point. "Piracy" is a technological reality, which you can attempt to mitigate with legal sanctions (which basically don't work) or technical solutions which, while they could be effective, would defeat the point of an open internet.

To make that more clear, the price of "stopping piracy" -- your "choice" for owners of IP -- is a dramatic curtailment of civil liberties in other areas. Those of us making the "pro" piracy argument are saying that we're not willing to deal with those curtailments because a handful of monopolies are upset about losing control.

You're arguing for anti-competitive and anti-choice practices, which would seem to be against the grain of your moralism.

[TheHammer]

On the contrary, MANY people here are making it a moral argument since the legal question tends to fall on the side of it being illegal. They point to studies showing piracy benefiting certain works and artists and hold that up as an example of why its "ok" to pirate media, and that steps to curb said pirating should not be taken.

Your perception of the argument does not make it thus.

The problem here is your lack of perception.

I'm arguing for the owner of intellectual property to have a choice. I'm not aware of what choices you are referring to having been removed from strong IP laws, aside from the ability to pirate media. Digital distribution has in fact been embraced by music, print, and software industries, and to a growing extent by the movie industry.

Strong IP laws remove choices from consumers and from competitors in the market, even a substantial amount of time after the vast majority of income has been made from the work in question. The effect is to lock up culture behind legal barriers -- an act which is explicitly contrary to the purpose of copyright laws.

Care to list an example? All I'm seeing is unsupported claims. No one is proposing "locking up culture". As I noted, most industries have embraced a digitial distribution (Amazon, Itunes, etc). They simply wish to be compensated for their work.

Copyright laws were never about "physical possession". It was about artists being compensated for reproductions of their work.

You're wrong on both counts, actually. Copyright laws have been suborned into the modern-day free-market religion without much concern for their actual effects on culture, economic output, or historical basis; this is why the latter statement is so often repeated when it's blatantly false.

Copyright law began as a means of encouraging the distribution of works by granting rights to the author for a limited term. You'd need some historical context from early 18th century England to understand the details, but the point being, copyright laws were made so that books would get a wider distribution than offered by the monopolies of the day.

That doesn't make any sense. You don't encourage "distribution" by granting exclusive rights. You encourage creation by protecting the creator from having his work pilfered and distributed by anyone with a printing press. Regardless of the origin of the term, its clear that since the time of the US Constitution its meant something entirely different which I will get to momentarily...

Even US law makes it clear that copyright law is meant to promote the arts and sciences, in effect giving rights to the author rather than the distributor for a limited term -- but this has been transformed into a property right (and hardly of limited term) by industry lobbying, and that state of being is not beneficial for anyone besides those companies.

Since you cited U.S. law, From the U.S. constitution: "The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". In case you still don't get it, the ultimate goal is the betterment of society, but this is accomplished by encouraging work from individuals through the incentive of profit. If someone writes a great novel, only to have it taken and distributed by someone else that person would not be so inclined to create any additional works. It would also discourage others from creating new works as well. I really shouldn't have to explain this...

That individual musicians, artists, and writers have been so brainwashed by the belief that they need strong IP protections, when the landscape makes it clear that the large companies are almost exclusive beneficiaries, is a testament to the reach music and movie industry lobbying.

Clearly the larger the company, the more they will benefit. It doesn't mean that they shouldn't have the same rights. In the case of multi-million dollar movies, or software developed at great expense, these companies also have significant investment to protect.

As noted, there is NOTHING prevent individual arists, muscians, and writers from making their work freely available on the internet. As the IP holder, this is and should be their choice.

While its not realistic to expect to eliminate all piracy, and industry can't abandon all pretense of fighting it. Doing so would greatly remove the moral and legal ramifications that act as a deterrent, and WOULD negatively impact sales.

On what do you base this statement?

Common sense? There are a great many people in this world who don't do things simply because they are illegal and they fear the ramifications of breaking the law. Laws that are not enforced tend to be ignored. If a person could get for free any movie, book, or software they wanted many of them would not pay for it where they otherwise might have.

If you make all of your work "freely available" then you are at best going to capitalize on advertisements, or donations. Many "shareware" type products DO in fact follow that model, whereby you can pay to get "ad-free" versions, or bonus features not available in free release. No doubt this does work for those companies that stay in business. However, I don't think you should force that to be their only choice. As creators of said intellectual policy they should have the choice to make what they feel is the best decision for their company.

You're not quite getting the point. "Piracy" is a technological reality, which you can attempt to mitigate with legal sanctions (which basically don't work) or technical solutions which, while they could be effective, would defeat the point of an open internet.

I'm afraid its you who aren't getting the point. Legal sanctions DO work to LIMIT piracy. Your hardcore pirates will always attempt to skirt the law, but as long as you can keep that scope limited in practice then its something you can "live with". Handwaving away fighting Piracy because it is a "technological reality" is completely asinine. Crime in general is a "reality" that doesn't mean that we allow it to proceed unchecked.

To make that more clear, the price of "stopping piracy" -- your "choice" for owners of IP -- is a dramatic curtailment of civil liberties in other areas. Those of us making the "pro" piracy argument are saying that we're not willing to deal with those curtailments because a handful of monopolies are upset about losing control.

You're arguing for anti-competitive and anti-choice practices, which would seem to be against the grain of your moralism.

What civil liberties are curtailed?

How is it anti-competative or anti-choice? You can't just toss out statements as fact without something to back it up.

Your "pro piracy" argument seems centered around the idea that you should just be able to take whatever you want, and then pay for it later if you feel it's "worth it". And if anyone comes looking for you, well they are stepping all over your civil liberties. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that there wasn't abuse - particularly by the RIAA in the early days, but that doesn't excuse piracy as a whole.

[ThomasP]

Care to list an example? All I'm seeing is unsupported claims. No one is proposing "locking up culture". As I noted, most industries have embraced a digitial distribution (Amazon, Itunes, etc). They simply wish to be compensated for their work.

You are proposing exactly that. Copyright is about control of distribution and usage, not compensation to creators.

I really shouldn't have to explain this...

You have to explain it because your explanations are distortions of reality and ignorant of the history, context, and purpose of copyright laws, as well as the consequences of excessive IP laws.

Common sense? There are a great many people in this world who don't do things simply because they are illegal and they fear the ramifications of breaking the law. Laws that are not enforced tend to be ignored. If a person could get for free any movie, book, or software they wanted many of them would not pay for it where they otherwise might have.

Your last statement has been disproved by research in this very thread. Do you have any compelling case besides "common sense" to accept your reasoning in favor of peer-reviewed research?

I'm afraid its you who aren't getting the point. Legal sanctions DO work to LIMIT piracy. Your hardcore pirates will always attempt to skirt the law, but as long as you can keep that scope limited in practice then its something you can "live with".

You keep repeating this, but your naive classical-school beliefs on criminology are even less compelling than your uninformed views on copyright law. The investment of resources on curtailing piracy, and on protection of IP in a broader sense, are resources that could be put to better use elsewhere, and there is zero evidence to support your view that IP protectionism boosts profits in any way.

Unless we accept your "common sense" arguments. Which I don't.

Handwaving away fighting Piracy because it is a "technological reality" is completely asinine. Crime in general is a "reality" that doesn't mean that we allow it to proceed unchecked.

Crime also has demonstrable harm. That's why it's crime. File sharing among P2P users doesn't. It may even provide benefits to creators in some circumstances.

What civil liberties are curtailed?

In cases where media industries have lobbied for fast-tracking of civil claims, massive fines, and internet disconnections, the violation should be fairly obvious, especially given the UN's recent declaration of internet access as a human right. There are also issues of privacy and due process which are being side-stepped in favor of "combating piracy".

Consumers of goods are being told what they can and can't do with goods they've purchased. Why aren't you advocating the rights of consumers to use what they've rightfully paid for?

How is it anti-competative or anti-choice? You can't just toss out statements as fact without something to back it up.

Back up like "common sense"?

There are two works that will answer your question with far more detail than I am able in the span of a post.

Against Intellectual Monopoly by Michele Boldrin and DK Levine
Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig

They even cite academic and legal references.

Your "pro piracy" argument seems centered around the idea that you should just be able to take whatever you want, and then pay for it later if you feel it's "worth it". And if anyone comes looking for you, well they are stepping all over your civil liberties. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that there wasn't abuse - particularly by the RIAA in the early days, but that doesn't excuse piracy as a whole.

You can keep repeating it, but this strawman has yet to gain traction.

[K. A. Pital]

Crap movies aren't likely to be widely viewed for the simple reason they are crap.

A lot of crap movies see DVD-sales as a key to "making a profit". Those will die out.

Its the major movies that will see a loss in revenue as people will decide to opt for pizza and a movie at home, rather than spending a little extra and going to the theatre. Not everyone, but enough to have an impact.

Surely you're joking. A home TV can't replace the cinema, effect-wise. Yes, there is a small share who might be pushed here or there, but mostly people who go to the movies go there exactly NOT to watch the movie on crappy small TV screen at home. Case in point: Russia. All movies are universally available on the net, you just have to wait. And yet, cinemas are full and movies don't experience a problem with profitability if they make it big at the theatre.

The producers of an arthouse film could very well promote their film be distributed on the web. Or they might not because they feel it takes away from their artistic vision. Should be their choice as the copyright holder though should it not?

Why? Copyright isn't some sort of holy right given from above ever unchangeable. They might reject the web and make stupid DVDs and stuff them with DRM and whatever - their choice. In a while, when people switch to purely digital, DVDs will die out and then nobody would give a shit. Whoops. And so some of the arthouse makers who want to make money on their film will leave the industry? All the better; like I said, MOST do not expect returns on arthouse. So MOST won't be affected, and a tiny minority of greedy producers that WILL be affected is nothing in the face of massive public good - FREE MOVIES.

Same with the makers of "crap music" as you say, although if its truly crap, why would people really choose to download it?

No, they wouldn't, and that's exactly why it will die out. People will see it available for free, download it and then they wouldn't suffer any loss - it's crap, don't listen it. In torrents, it does work - crap stuff doesn't get downloaded millions of times, good stuff does. It is a system which has a natural selection process for crap and non-crap.

Experiment band deciding to release their music for free to get exposure? GREAT more power to them.

Indeed. Shall I take that as torrents shouldn't be punished then? Because they're one of the most popular venues for young experimental singers now, at least here in Russia.

As for written media, not being bound by paper is probably a blessing for many authors. They'd have no need to split any revenue with bookstores or printing companies. But should be their choice right? After all, they created it.

Like I said, yes, their choice. Fans of paper books will always buy paper books. Yes, paper will shrink to a small sector, so more competition, uh-huh, but so what? Yes, some part of the authors who want to make money and yet don't want to make a paper book because they feel it won't make sales good enough for them - those will die out. Not a problem, just like with the above. It would be offset by massively increased availability of books to the society. It is not as if libraries aren't the very same thing, except the Internet has turned the whole world into one massive, ever-accessible library. And that is AWESOME, indeed.

On a side note, ironically its the "crap software" that usually GETS the service contracts because its so finicky, buggy, or hard to deal with that you NEED to have the support to keep it running. Service contracts for software that works as its supposed to tends to be first casuality in a budget crunch.

Heh. That's actually a good point. But then, Mozilla requires no support contracts and its free. People will still make products. No doubt about that. And of course, the main clients will be the crazy IP-obsessed corporations, who will only use proprietary software, so the market will shrink (personal individual software would no longer be non-free), but so what? Not a problem; software availability to populace is more important.

In fact, the economic growth generated by pirated Microsoft software is SHITLOADS OF TIMES more important than profits of Microsoft. Microsoft is a wealthy First World corporation whose workers aren't suffering any privations or problems. Chinese, Bangladeshi, Indian workers who used pirated Microsoft software improved productivity in their poor nations, helped to use computers for economic, industrial planning, etc. which helped to raise life level and speed up industrialization and automatization in these nations.

That is why moral requirements trump legal ones. Overall social benefit trumps individual benefit or profit.

[Xon]

You can also create a similar situation by committing shoplifting in each of several jurisdictions- if you have to be tried for each instance of breaking a law, it's not that hard to commit so many petty crimes that it becomes cost-ineffective to try you.

Great job missing the point.

It's an reductio ad absurdum to show that the fines which represent compenstation for damages + "punishment" can be trivially created which exceed the total worth of the entire industry sector. A few hundred people getting in on such a scheme could generate "damages" eclipsing the world's GDP with some effort. Despite just shuffling bit patterns around which no one else can ever see.

Does that mean we should abolish all petty crimes, not just copyright infringement?

If it was made a petty crime to play a recording of someone saying something in a room that had no one in, and nothing observing it, you bet I'm arguing for it to be abolished*.

*In many places it's an actual crime to play free-to-air radio for public consumption without a broadcast licence(and a boatload of fees to various media conglomerates) even if no one hears it.

[Simon_Jester]

You can also create a similar situation by committing shoplifting in each of several jurisdictions- if you have to be tried for each instance of breaking a law, it's not that hard to commit so many petty crimes that it becomes cost-ineffective to try you.

Great job missing the point.

It's an reductio ad absurdum to show that the fines which represent compenstation for damages + "punishment" can be trivially created which exceed the total worth of the entire industry sector. A few hundred people getting in on such a scheme could generate "damages" eclipsing the world's GDP with some effort. Despite just shuffling bit patterns around which no one else can ever see.

Yes. You can make a good argument for capping damages, based on that- but not for abolishing the crime altogether.

There are plenty of crimes for which the penalty is a fine not to exceed some particular sum, because it's so unlikely that anyone committing the crime could do more harm than that.

[Thanas]

Which brings us back to the "torrents do harm" stuff, which has been debunked over and over again. It is telling that the only studies who claim so are financed by the industry.

[TheHammer]

Crap movies aren't likely to be widely viewed for the simple reason they are crap.

A lot of crap movies see DVD-sales as a key to "making a profit". Those will die out.

Eh, I don't think hollywood will ever stop making crap . Even still, why should they be denied the right to try and recoup their investment, or make a profit off DVD sales? By the time a movie reaches dvd, surely most people will have heard whether or not it was "crap".

Its the major movies that will see a loss in revenue as people will decide to opt for pizza and a movie at home, rather than spending a little extra and going to the theatre. Not everyone, but enough to have an impact.

Surely you're joking. A home TV can't replace the cinema, effect-wise. Yes, there is a small share who might be pushed here or there, but mostly people who go to the movies go there exactly NOT to watch the movie on crappy small TV screen at home. Case in point: Russia. All movies are universally available on the net, you just have to wait. And yet, cinemas are full and movies don't experience a problem with profitability if they make it big at the theatre.

No one is arguing the fact that the home movie experience is inferior to that of the movie theatre. But the gap is definitely closing with home theatre quality sound systems, 3d high definition televions, or even projectors available to most people. I don't know what they charge for the price of a movie ticket in Russia, but in the states it is getting pretty pricey these days. Granted, the idea of falling ticket prices sounds appealing, but on the other hand it might also lead to smaller and smaller budgets for films. Again, some people might view that as a benefit as well but I digress

The producers of an arthouse film could very well promote their film be distributed on the web. Or they might not because they feel it takes away from their artistic vision. Should be their choice as the copyright holder though should it not?

Why? Copyright isn't some sort of holy right given from above ever unchangeable. They might reject the web and make stupid DVDs and stuff them with DRM and whatever - their choice. In a while, when people switch to purely digital, DVDs will die out and then nobody would give a shit. Whoops. And so some of the arthouse makers who want to make money on their film will leave the industry? All the better; like I said, MOST do not expect returns on arthouse. So MOST won't be affected, and a tiny minority of greedy producers that WILL be affected is nothing in the face of massive public good - FREE MOVIES.

I'm not really seeing a counter argument there. I'm not saying that Copyrights are "unchangeable holy rights" to anything. They are limited in both time and scope. Obviously, it varies from country to country, but there are "fair use" statutes in most nations for copyrighted material. But at the same time, it does offer the IP holder some rights and protection as pertains to their work. Piracy essentially takes away ALL of their rights in that regard.

Same with the makers of "crap music" as you say, although if its truly crap, why would people really choose to download it?

No, they wouldn't, and that's exactly why it will die out. People will see it available for free, download it and then they wouldn't suffer any loss - it's crap, don't listen it. In torrents, it does work - crap stuff doesn't get downloaded millions of times, good stuff does. It is a system which has a natural selection process for crap and non-crap.

That's basically the way it is now. If your music sucks, people won't buy it. If they screwed up and bought it on a whim then they aren't likely to buy any more in the future. I don't think its the makers of "crap music" that are out there beating the drums for copyright enforcement.

Experiment band deciding to release their music for free to get exposure? GREAT more power to them.

Indeed. Shall I take that as torrents shouldn't be punished then? Because they're one of the most popular venues for young experimental singers now, at least here in Russia.

Absolutely - If the music in has been released by the bands to the public, it shouldn't matter how they distribute it since they've made the choice for it to be freely available. Torrents are simply a means of distribution.

As for written media, not being bound by paper is probably a blessing for many authors. They'd have no need to split any revenue with bookstores or printing companies. But should be their choice right? After all, they created it.

Like I said, yes, their choice. Fans of paper books will always buy paper books. Yes, paper will shrink to a small sector, so more competition, uh-huh, but so what? Yes, some part of the authors who want to make money and yet don't want to make a paper book because they feel it won't make sales good enough for them - those will die out. Not a problem, just like with the above. It would be offset by massively increased availability of books to the society. It is not as if libraries aren't the very same thing, except the Internet has turned the whole world into one massive, ever-accessible library. And that is AWESOME, indeed.

The difference is that every library has to purchase at least one copy of a book in order to have it. They serve to support the authors in that way, and there are millions of them all across world. Digital distribution is awesome and should be encouraged, with a system in place to compensate authors. If an author can't make a living off the books he is creating then he will no doubt have to find some other line of work. New writings that are created are likely to be less researched, and take longer time to write as an author won't be able to devote their full time to it. That means that future works will suffer for it in both quantity and quality.

On a side note, ironically its the "crap software" that usually GETS the service contracts because its so finicky, buggy, or hard to deal with that you NEED to have the support to keep it running. Service contracts for software that works as its supposed to tends to be first casuality in a budget crunch.

Heh. That's actually a good point. But then, Mozilla requires no support contracts and its free. People will still make products. No doubt about that. And of course, the main clients will be the crazy IP-obsessed corporations, who will only use proprietary software, so the market will shrink (personal individual software would no longer be non-free), but so what? Not a problem; software availability to populace is more important.

In the case of Mozilla, yes it is a non-profit group that puts out a free product but the company itself does generate revenue through donations and contracts with other companies such as Google.

Obviously there are people out there who will support a product out of enthusiasm, or to expand their creativity. However many of those people also have day jobs, likely programming for companies that they get paid for. If writing software no longer became profitable you'd see less people enter the industry in the first place.

In fact, the economic growth generated by pirated Microsoft software is SHITLOADS OF TIMES more important than profits of Microsoft. Microsoft is a wealthy First World corporation whose workers aren't suffering any privations or problems. Chinese, Bangladeshi, Indian workers who used pirated Microsoft software improved productivity in their poor nations, helped to use computers for economic, industrial planning, etc. which helped to raise life level and speed up industrialization and automatization in these nations.

That is why moral requirements trump legal ones. Overall social benefit trumps individual benefit or profit.

Microsoft makes its software available relatively cheaply to teachers and students, and dirt cheaply available to non profit organizations and third world nations. And Microsoft does, obviously, have to tolerate some piracy because it simply has no other choice. Sure It is a wealthy first world company now but it had to build itself up to get to that point, and needs to be able to turn a profit to keep going. If you remove any semblance of combating software piracy then you remove incentive for Microsoft to spend the time and money to make software. There has to be a balance, otherwise you actually have a long term negative social effect.

I don't buy the industry line about them losing billions of dollars in sales to piracy. And I don't buy the line from Pirates that if copyright laws ceased to exist for digital media that everyone would live in a utopia of creativity. I do think tha there does need to be an effort to combat pirates, as a deterrent if nothing else. I'd be all for copyright reform that still protects the creators of IP, but prevents issues of abuse that we saw in the early days of the RIAA suits.

[TheHammer]

Care to list an example? All I'm seeing is unsupported claims. No one is proposing "locking up culture". As I noted, most industries have embraced a digitial distribution (Amazon, Itunes, etc). They simply wish to be compensated for their work.

You are proposing exactly that. Copyright is about control of distribution and usage, not compensation to creators.

The control of distribution is directly tied to compensation for the creators. I'm sure they want it to be in the hands of as many people as possible, but they don't want to have their time and efforts exploited.

Common sense? There are a great many people in this world who don't do things simply because they are illegal and they fear the ramifications of breaking the law. Laws that are not enforced tend to be ignored. If a person could get for free any movie, book, or software they wanted many of them would not pay for it where they otherwise might have.

Your last statement has been disproved by research in this very thread. Do you have any compelling case besides "common sense" to accept your reasoning in favor of peer-reviewed research?

It's not disproven in the least. Current studies show that file sharing - both legal and otherwise, may benefit certain artists genres in getting exposure. I'm arguing that failing to combat piracy at all would lead to significant harm and loss of sales. It is a simple fact that many people who can get something for free won't choose to pay for it if there are no consequences for not doing so. It's not a giant leap in logic to say that if you remove the police, crime is likely to go up. That's the common sense to which I'm referring that you apparently lack.

I'm afraid its you who aren't getting the point. Legal sanctions DO work to LIMIT piracy. Your hardcore pirates will always attempt to skirt the law, but as long as you can keep that scope limited in practice then its something you can "live with".

You keep repeating this, but your naive classical-school beliefs on criminology are even less compelling than your uninformed views on copyright law. The investment of resources on curtailing piracy, and on protection of IP in a broader sense, are resources that could be put to better use elsewhere, and there is zero evidence to support your view that IP protectionism boosts profits in any way.

Unless we accept your "common sense" arguments. Which I don't.

Ah yes because its entirely my point of view and not also the point of view of many legal experts. You keep repeating your unsubstantiated claims and then presenting evidence of oh wait you don't present any evidence.

Handwaving away fighting Piracy because it is a "technological reality" is completely asinine. Crime in general is a "reality" that doesn't mean that we allow it to proceed unchecked.

Crime also has demonstrable harm. That's why it's crime. File sharing among P2P users doesn't. It may even provide benefits to creators in some circumstances.

Unless you are seriously arguing that everyone who recieves IP for free either A) pays for it later, or B) never would have purchased it anyway, then harm is done. File sharing may help promote lesser known artists through "advertising" but Microsoft and other major companies are not being helped. Right now, there is a balance because piracy is being combated to an extent that limits the harm, and thus allows for the "success stories" of the little known artist getting exposure for his work.

What civil liberties are curtailed?

In cases where media industries have lobbied for fast-tracking of civil claims, massive fines, and internet disconnections, the violation should be fairly obvious, especially given the UN's recent declaration of internet access as a human right. There are also issues of privacy and due process which are being side-stepped in favor of "combating piracy".

As I already noted, simply because there was abuse doesn't mean that IP protections are inherently wrong. I've already said that copyright law should have multiple tiers to differentiate "consumption" from "mass distribution", and further "mass distribution for profit". Reform is certainly an option, throwing up your hands and allowing unfettered piracy is not.

Consumers of goods are being told what they can and can't do with goods they've purchased. Why aren't you advocating the rights of consumers to use what they've rightfully paid for?

Now who is trying to treat this as a physical property right? You generally don't actually "purchase" these goods. You purchase a license that allows you to use software, or possess a single copy of a written work. There are separate laws governing that sort of thing. The nature of the product in question requires that sort of thing. Hell, one of the works YOU cite - Free Culture has a "license for use": http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/

How is it anti-competative or anti-choice? You can't just toss out statements as fact without something to back it up.

Back up like "common sense"?

There are two works that will answer your question with far more detail than I am able in the span of a post.

Against Intellectual Monopoly by Michele Boldrin and DK Levine
Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig

They even cite academic and legal references.

Tossing out links to books or papers is not exactly "backing it up". I could do the same damn thing from the other side:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/tfis ... heory.html

http://www.thetruecosts.org/pages/why-a ... -important

Citing something yourself from those works would be better...

Your "pro piracy" argument seems centered around the idea that you should just be able to take whatever you want, and then pay for it later if you feel it's "worth it". And if anyone comes looking for you, well they are stepping all over your civil liberties. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that there wasn't abuse - particularly by the RIAA in the early days, but that doesn't excuse piracy as a whole.

You can keep repeating it, but this strawman has yet to gain traction.

If that's not what you think you're arguing, maybe you should rethink the tact you've been taking. If you are talking about reforming protection for IP, then we might agree on more than you think. But from what you've written thus far it seems like you are simply advocating digital anarchy.

[ThomasP]

Unless you are seriously arguing that everyone who recieves IP for free either A) pays for it later, or B) never would have purchased it anyway, then harm is done. File sharing may help promote lesser known artists through "advertising" but Microsoft and other major companies are not being helped. Right now, there is a balance because piracy is being combated to an extent that limits the harm, and thus allows for the "success stories" of the little known artist getting exposure for his work.

How does IP protectionism reduce this harm? Can you show that it does, and to what degree? I don't care about "common sense this is how I think the law works" platitudes. Show some numbers or back off the point.

How much harm is done in the first place? Can you quantify how many people behave this way?

Even if you don't give a damn about the laws and their implications, you'd still be hard pressed to make a point that spending the cash that the MPAA spends on "stopping piracy" couldn't be better spent on, oh I don't know, hiring better writers.

Can you show that anything about anti-P2P enforcement works in anyone's best interests with anything more than "common sense"?

I know that you can't answer any of these questions, and you're just going to ignore or side-step them in your next broken-record response, but they haven't gone away.

Reform is certainly an option, throwing up your hands and allowing unfettered piracy is not.

Because "common sense", right?

You make it sound like "allowing unfettered piracy" is the end of the world, but this is already happening. Piracy is already as unfettered as it gets, and legal measures make, at best, a few percentage points of difference.

Turns out unfettered piracy leads to rampant growth in the book, movie, and music industries. What a nightmare scenario.

Now who is trying to treat this as a physical property right?

You are, though you're inconsistent about it. You seem to be okay with treating copyright as a property right as long as it's on behalf of the rights holder; the purchaser who buys the good can just go suck it because they bought a license.

This asymmetry between rights of creators and consumers is exactly the problem, and your legalism doesn't change that.

Citing something yourself from those works would be better...

I chose those works specifically because they make an argument against strong IP laws and support that argument with references. If you're too busy playing Playground Tryhard to even glance at them, then this discussion's usefulness has ended.

If you are talking about reforming protection for IP, then we might agree on more than you think. But from what you've written thus far it seems like you are simply advocating digital anarchy.

Given the situation as it stands, I don't think digital anarchy is a problem. Minus people whining and stamping their feet about "common sense", all the empirical evidence shows that online file-sharing is, at the very least, no real loss, and it's very likely a net positive for smaller creators, even with the free-rider problem factored in, by boosting their visibility.

If it comes down to a choice between entrenched industries and "digital anarchy", then I'm just as happy to see the old guard put out of business. I'm simply not willing to destroy the potential of Internet distribution nor incur legal penalties all so that I can be charged $19.99 for an ebook or $30 for a CD to guarantee that somebody's outdated business model keeps working.

In realistic terms, I'm quite happy to see massively overhauled IP laws, which actually have some respect for consumer rights and social good instead of blind adherence to profit motive.

[Broomstick]

OK, I'm back, and I'm dividing my stuff up into three posts to help with the tl:dr problem:

Nobody is arguing against that or that "professional" pirates should go to jail and be damned. Get your head around this please and stop arguing as if Oni and my position is "ALL FILESHARING IS GOOD AND THERE SHOULD BE NO COPYRIGHT AT ALL 111!!1"

Actually, what really cranked my handle was Xon's ““No, that money was not yours and, in all likelihood, never had a chance to be yours either.” despite the fact that at the time I was already a published author writing for pay. Really, no one has slapped him down for that? Back in post 53 if I'm counting right. And ThomasP is doing his damnedest to argue copyright as we know it shouldn't exist at all in the digital age.

That's part of my objection here – the attitude by some people (certainly not all, and not you Thanas, or necessarily Oni) as demonstrated by Xon or ThomasP that no, the creator/artist/IP holder actually is not entitled to any form of compensation or control. If I muddled a bit on that I apologize (and I realized I was getting get pissed off, which is why I took a short absence from this thread so my responses would be more rational).

I actually am in favor of file-sharing, fair use, and quite a few other things but I do think IP exists, it actually has value, and society benefits if there are some rules regarding it.

Please establish how your position is in any way consistent with the studies posted, and please establish how you plan to argue that on average, filesharing tends to do more bad than good when the very same studies quoted in this thread seem to suggest otherwise.

Because that is really the crux of the matter right here.

I have not had time to really study those linked articles, and I question (said opinion subject to change as I acquire more knowledge) if there has really been enough time with file-sharing easily available to really determine how beneficial or not it might be. Just as you don't want YOUR position distorted, please do not distort mine either. I don't object to file-sharing in and of itself, what I do object to is piracy and unauthorized distribution whether or not there's money involved. Just because file-sharing benefits some works doesn't mean it will benefit all, or to equal degrees.

So, given that I have finally finished that damned roofing job I was on I now have time to go look at those links. It still might be a day or two before I respond because I'll actually want to think about the matter.

[Broomstick]

About file-sharing

I don't think that's what anyone is arguing. A copyright holder can do whatever the hell they want with their IP. If they wish to allow content they own to be file shared, then more power to them. If they want to limit it to only excerpts to give people a taste before they make a purchase, again more power to them. The argument essentially centers around unauthorized distribution, not opposition to file sharing as a whole.

^ This.

I will staunchly defend the right of a legitimate owner to distribute IP however they want, up to an including no holds barred file sharing. However, I also will defend the right of an IP holder to NOT distribute, or to limit distribution as well.

The point of my analogy was to make it clear that even if someone's property isn't stolen, downloading music/movies is still immoral because the creators of the music/movies are being robbed of the time and effort they invested in its creation.

No – unauthorized downloading is theft, not downloading in an of itself. If the IP holder wants to distribute by download that is totally OK and well within current laws. It's downloading without permission, or against the wishes of the IP holder, that is problematic.

Is it still stealing if I go to my friend's house and watch a movie without paying for it, or if I check a book out of the library? In both instances, one purchase has been viewed by multiple parties, making it functionally, if not legally, equivalent to the example.

The watching a movie at a friend's house issue was settled back in the rise of VCR's, though I can't recall the details clearly (gee, it's only about 25-30 years, right?). No, it's not.

The library thing – anything sold or donated to a library can be assumed to be used by multiple parties. My guess would be that a court would say the act of donating or selling to a library assumes permission for lending.

My library also is using a service called Freegal for music downloading at no cost to patrons. That is also totally legal, as it is done with the full knowledge and permission of the IP holder. In actual fact, some money does exchange hands, but from the patron point of view yes, it's free and legal as long as you stay within the rules (which include no more than three downloads per week, among other things). Again, it's an authorized download, and that's the distinction here. The IP holder has granted permission.

The division is a goddamn sharp line. If you make money off of unauthorized copying and selling of someone else's work, it's bad, you should be punished, they should be compensated. If your copying nets you no money, and cannot be reasonably shown to impact their sales, then it isn't bad and hurts no one. This isn't fucking rocket science.

Yeah, there's just the detail that, at least in the US, the law as currently written makes no distinction. Unauthorized copying of IP is illegal and a felony here, it's a Federal level crime that can have the FBI all over your ass even if you give the copies away for free. Under US law it is, in fact, theft.

So, even if those studies (which yes, I will go back and read) say file-sharing is overwhelming beneficial for artists and makes the IP holders more money than otherwise at least in the US UNauthorized file-sharing is still illegal. Now, if it turns out that file-sharing is a fantastic thing there is zero obstacle to artists/IP holders putting stuff on the internet themselves with a big banner over it saying “I GIVE YOU PERMISSION TO DOWNLOAD”, which makes it all nice and legal. Unless it's explicit, though, in the US not having that permission makes you a crminal.

And what does US law have to do with this thread? Well, the OP mentions the US wanting to re-write influence European law to make it consistent with US law. Yes, that's a problem on several levels:
- Should the US be trying to influence law-making in other countries? (We know it tries whether it should do so or not, of course)
- Why should European countries change their laws to match the US laws?
- If US law is detrimental to artists/fans/IP holders/everybody else then by all means resist it – after all, even if the US thinks its trainwreck of a “health system” is TEH GREATEST! you all know better, right?
- Then there's the “problem” that the internet is international – what's legal one place can be illegal another. So if you live somewhere where file-sharing is wide-open unregulated and legal try not to use a service using hardware located in a country where what you're doing is illegal. I mean, come on, we've all seen these sorts of issues come up on the internet. There have been pulled off SD.net because the server it sits on is located in the US. There are some topics legal to discuss in the US that someone in another country could be jailed for downloading information on it. So even if I'm in favor of file-sharing I would definitely caution anyone using such a service to be aware of the law, whether they think that's a good law or not.

[...] Thats between 15312 infringements per month to 105.6 million infringments per month.

So... don't do that? I think I understand your point, but I don't see how your example relates to it, so I may be completely confused...

The actual point is I can cause more demonstrable harm to society by bogging the court system down with utter worthless crap than to any one else. It's actually worse if copyright infringement was a criminal act which the government was compelled to prosecute.

Well, if (very hypothetically) you were hauled in the US court over that they wouldn't charge you with X individual infringements for X number of trials – it would all be combined into just one trial. And, in fact, copyright infringement IS a crime in many countries where yes, the government is compelled to prosecute. So, it would be a case of deliberately flouting the law to make a point. In the some countries there is a concept called “civil disobedience” where, essentially, you delibrately break the law to make a point. Which is what is sounds like your proposing with your 15,312 infringements per month scheme. However, civil disobedience is not a get out of jail free card. Plenty of people exercising that option have served jail terms.

Now, I'll grant you the penalties for copyright infringment seem way out of bounds from actual harm done in most cases. I think there should be a different set of penalties of infringment for personal use, something closer to the actual cost of a work (with reasonable penalty fees), and infringement with intent to distribute for monetary gain.

^ I can get on board with that.

Care to list an example? All I'm seeing is unsupported claims. No one is proposing "locking up culture". As I noted, most industries have embraced a digitial distribution (Amazon, Itunes, etc). They simply wish to be compensated for their work.

You are proposing exactly that. Copyright is about control of distribution and usage, not compensation to creators.

The control of distribution is directly tied to compensation for the creators. I'm sure they want it to be in the hands of as many people as possible, but they don't want to have their time and efforts exploited.

^ This.

[Broomstick]

You may be a 'good citizen' when it comes to making sure to eventually pay for something you got for free, but not everyone is. Consider Broomstick's experience with the creative writing posted on her website: available for free with a request for donations, and she gets very few donations per person who just happens to wander through the site checking things out. This is bad for her incentive to add new high-quality material to the site when she has other things to do with her time, as she is in bad enough financial straits as it is.

I would just like to point out, however, that most of what's on that site I either already have been paid for, or I don't think is salable in a commercial market either due to multiple rejections or because significant portions have already appeared on line. So, in that case, anything I make is money I wouldn't make otherwise. So... yeah, I actually do participate in the whole internet distribution for free thing – on my terms. However, from my experience there, none of the internet money comes even close to matching what I make selling first publication rights to actual publishers, even if the latter happens far less often than views of my website. So yes, I'm skeptical. Sure, “sales” in a sense are higher on my website if you count each view as a “sale”, but profits are higher selling to publishers. When I can do it.

But yes, it is more profitable for me to engage in a back-breaking roof repair job than to add to my offerings on-line, even though I would MUCH prefer it to be the other way around. This is also why I am skeptical of the "free distribution and unlimited access/copying always produces higher sales" argument, it directly contradicts my own experience. Well, OK, I might be an exception. Maybe I suck as a writer... but then why have publishers actually paid me for my work off and on through the years?

Again, I'm not denying it works for some people - what I question is whether it is equally beneficial for all.

If I want to spend my entertainment dollars wisely (and I do, and so should everyone else), have I any choice but to find a way to preview entertainment before purchasing it?

Oddly enough, the market seems to be listening – quite a few sites offer excepts of work for you to hear/see/read prior to making your purchase, analogous to browsing through a book at a book store or, back in the old days, when you could go to a record store and hear a track or two off an album before you bought it.

TV seems a bit more problematic – in some instances an episode (or a few episodes) of a series are featured on a free service like Hulu, which likely does result in some DVD sales. On the other hand, I've stumbled across a lot of sites that do more or less the same thing but are also clearly NOT legitimate sellers.

This is a very bad example. I don't think anyone would suggest that you're going to make a living by posting fan fiction on a website with a Paypal button.

1) It's not fan fiction.
2) In fact, the one fictional item I ever sold was not fan fiction.
3) In fact, it's NON-fiction
4) Clearly, you haven't even looked at the site (which is OK by me – if you're not interested I'm not offended at you passing by the opportunity)
5) Most of it I actually DID get paid for when I sold the first publication rights to a publisher.

To flip the question: would she make any more money by putting up the same work as a 39.99 ebook with DRM? If not, is piracy the real problem?

Well, no, that would be grossly overpriced for what amounts to 1500 word articles. It would help if you knew what you were discussing.

Pink's case is that once basic financial needs are met, financial incentives actually lead to worse performance in creative fields.

I'd have to triple my income to truly meet my basic financial needs, so let's just assume I have plenty of incentive to improve my performance, m'kay? And let's assume, since publishers have, in fact, paid me for my work and then printed copies for sale, which profited all parties involved, I have some basic writing competence.

Artistic types have to be intrinsically motivated, which only makes sense -- there was art and music and literature long before the advent of copyright laws and a mass-media industry to convince everyone they needed a lifetime monopoly to get paid.

Given that I've made some of my work freely available on the internet perhaps you shouldn't assume money is my ONLY motivation here... I do like getting my ego stroked, just like everyone else. Unfortunately, my landlord does not accept ego-slices for rent, nor does the local grocery store accept it as legal tender.

Copyright law began as a means of encouraging the distribution of works by granting rights to the author for a limited term.

This is true – my first works were published when copyright was still limited to less than lifetime even for a living author – I don't remember the exact terms, but it was quite common for authors to have to renew their copyrights within a lifetime to prevent works from entering the public domain. I think it was 28 years, after which copyright would need to be renewed? The key year was 1978, that's when the rules changed. (If anyone is curious, I first published in 1976)

[ThomasP]

And ThomasP is doing his damnedest to argue copyright as we know it shouldn't exist at all in the digital age.

That's part of my objection here – the attitude by some people (certainly not all, and not you Thanas, or necessarily Oni) as demonstrated by Xon or ThomasP that no, the creator/artist/IP holder actually is not entitled to any form of compensation or control.

I'm sorry, what?

If this is going to become a strawman festival or just making things up, then you can have your thread. I realize this is a hot-button issue, but you can do better than this.

[Broomstick]

Your assertion that piracy is already unfettered and that's grand, nothing should be done about it, is essentially a call for the abolishment of the entire concept of intellectual property. If intellectual property doesn't exist then the creator no longer has any right to control distribution or to claim any compensation for it.

[ThomasP]

Your assertion that piracy is already unfettered and that's grand, nothing should be done about it, is essentially a call for the abolishment of the entire concept of intellectual property. If intellectual property doesn't exist then the creator no longer has any right to control distribution or to claim any compensation for it.

I'm separating the moralistic "this is good and great" from the pragmatic "this is what technology enables and what is happening as a consequence", and if you're going to criticize me, you can at least have the courtesy of recognizing that.

Pointing out that P2P file sharing isn't really destroying lives or ruining incomes is not equivalent to "this is a good thing and we should encourage it and fuck you you have no rights".

One of the reasons I linked the Boldrin & Levine book is because they make a compelling case that IP laws aren't even necessary for creators of anything -- patentable drugs, books, movies -- to make a profit. I find it most interesting because it's a credible challenge to the belief that IP law is essential for creators to have any rights or to receive compensation for their work. It's an interesting thought experiment and they support their case with numerous examples.

Personally speaking I'm all for creators rights as long as they're balanced with consumer rights and social good. I simply don't believe, based on the balance of evidence, that 1. file sharing is a net harm, 2. that the measures taken to curb file-sharing are beneficial, useful, or worth the damage they incur. If it's a choice between shameless fear-based money-grabbing and open information, I'm going to support the latter every time. It's just that as far as I can see, there's no mutual exclusion between you making money on your work and it being more available.

If I haven't made that explicit enough, there it is.

[Broomstick]

I think we agree with #1 - file sharing is not inherently harmful. It's number 2 where we disagree. I don't object to work being more freely available, especially in the case of orphan works, but I don't think availability should be entirely without limit.