See, your disagreement with JR stems from the fact that you possess a moral compass, whereas he is a lawyer
Quit being so ambiguous.
Privacy and Piracy
- Thread starter Mise
- Start date
Quit being so ambiguous.
Mise
isle of lucy
For one I believe that copyright laws taken to their present extreme simply protect an outdated business model, rather than protecting the people who actually create works. I think that moderating the extent to which a copyright holder can pursue and punish copyright infringements would go a long way towards the market creating ways to reward originators without being so restrictive over the distribution of their works. I think originators are quite happy for people to actually enjoy their works -- as long as they receive fair compensation. And the current means of compensating the originator is to restrict supply to support prices. With new technology, it's becoming increasingly difficult to restrict supply in this manner, and thus support prices, which is why a new way of rewarding the originators is required.
There are lots and lots of legal and successful means of doing that, some funded by adverts, some by subscription fees, some by "renting" the work rather than buying it. Some business models revolve around giving stuff away for free as a loss leader in order to cross-sell more expensive products (e.g. Prince giving away his album for free in the newspapers meant that he sold FAR more concert tickets, and at a huge premium to boot).
First off, I believe that these business models are not being developed, because the industry has no need to develop them as long as they can continue to punish copyright infringement. This is clearly a case of excessive regulation causing market failure. Secondly, I believe (and this is just a belief at this stage) that these other business models will actually reward the originator better than the current system, first by making cost savings through cheaper (free) distribution channels, and second by removing many barriers to entry and structural inefficiencies that resulted in the need for small publishers to merge (such that a small number of publishers accounted for a large share of the market), which means more competition amongst publishers (=> better deal for originators). Thirdly, I believe that, even if the above isn't true, it will at least reward originators in a more fair and more equitable way, for both originators and consumers.
But really I've strayed from my main point, which is that current copyright laws are nuts, and that the status quo should be questioned. The question isn't "how do we ensure that originators' rewards are not diminished by the internet", it's "how do we reward originators fairly, in order to ensure sufficient new IP is developed and utilised".
Someone with a moral compass would respect centuries old property rights.
All of what you said sounds like a good idea and seems perfectly reasonable. New distribution mediums should necessitate a different type of market for IP products. I think this is slowly coming as you see more streaming content and devices being made to interact with one or two proprietary streaming mediums such as the Xbox and Netflix.
With that said I don't think a radical shift in copyright law is needed to make any of those changes come about. I guess what I am asking is what specific changes--to the law--do you think need to be made for this market to play out? I think it is playing out already, ironically in reaction to the massive amount of illegal content available for free online. Companies are realizing their main competitor is unfortunately "free," so they are switching to subscription or extremely low cost or advert supported content, or other kinds of marketing styles that give the consumer that warm and fuzzy "free" feeling or something like it.
You mentioned companies artificially restricting supply and moderating or changing avenues for infringement enforcement. Lowering statutory penalties? Lower copyright lifetime so goods come into public domain sooner?
I would like to see little changes around the edges: loosening draconian DMCA restrictions on "circumventing" copy protection for instance. In my opinion these allow software companies to get away with forcing customers who already purchased their software to buy it again if they do something like, change their motherboard on their PC, or lose their DVD. (Reasonable backups were already a recognized right for consumers, and the DMCA has done its best to put an end to that.) I could be on board with lowering statutory penalties so you don't see any more of these ridiculous multi-million dollar judgments against small time music pirates, which are really akin to a public lynching. But a major shift in copyright? I don't see one as necessary. (And I'm not sure what that would look like).
Mise
isle of lucy
I think that having a statutory penalty that is in line with the public's perception of the severity of the crime, rather than with the consequential loss associated with the individual act of piracy, would be a good place to start (and actually, I don't think the statutory penalties at all estimate consequential loss adequately, for reasons that have been discussed in other piracy threads recently). And I agree your assessment of the current state of the online market; if these other, legal markets do flourish, and people stop using the "illegal" means and start using the "legal" means, then I don't see a need to radically change copyright laws. In fact, the new technologies and business models will have rendered them irrelevant, without the law having to move a muscle. Reducing statutory penalties will provide less incentive for copyright holders to sue people, and hopefully this will encourage copyright holders to develop these new distribution channels and business models.
However, there is a much larger, much more pervasive, and much more effective tactic used by large corporations to prevent people using "illegal" means: scare tactics. Reducing statutory penalties will only go so far in reducing the effectiveness of scaring people into believing that downloading an MP3 is "theft". Hell, it's not even theft, it's copyright infringement -- and yet large corporations continue to get away with labelling copyright infringers as thieves, and people continue to believe it. These scare tactics are much more problematic, because the longer they continue to be effective, the longer the old business models will continue to be profitable, and the less incentive there is to develop new, fairer models as above. Changing copyright law in a fundamental way would prevent such scare tactics, and further encourage the development of new business models.
More fundamentally, if copyright laws no longer enable the originator to be adequately compensated for their efforts -- that is, if the originators are compensated in ways other than supply restriction via copyright laws -- then copyright laws are no longer necessary on a fundamental existential level.
It is copyright infringement in civil cases. It can still be prosecuted under criminal theft statutes in most jurisdictions.
Mise
isle of lucy
I'll add "decriminalising copyright infringement" to my list of legal changes then 
I don't see why taking something that doesn't belong to you shouldn't be prosecuted as theft.
Mise
isle of lucy
Because it's like stealing someone's soul.
I guess this is what I am having trouble understanding. If copyright no longer enabled the originator to be adequately compensated for their efforts, what is the alternative? I don't think copyright is supply restriction, it's rights restriction with the side (some would say intended) benefit of commoditization of the work. If restricting the supply of the work is how the originator wants to go about using the rights he has over his work, so be it, but that's not usually the case. I can buy as many copies of Harry Potter as I want, but no one else can go out and make their own Harry Potter. Hence the value in making the original Harry Potter, and the incentive not to be a copycat and make something new.
Everything you talked about in the prior post (ad funded content, renting rather than buying, etc.) still is based on a system where a rights holder controls distribution. If you eliminate the rights to the content and a means for the rights holder to restrict others from infringing on those rights, what stops the IP from just going into thin air where everyone can do whatever they want with it?
Mise
isle of lucy
The fact is, IP is already in the air, and everyone can do whatever they want with it, with practical impunity. Yet people continue to pay for music from iTunes, pay for digital books from Amazon, pay for games from Steam, and pay for movies via NetFlix. Some companies, such as Spotify and Hulu, don't even charge for their services, and are funded via adverts. That situation won't change if copyrights are done away with, and it's these revenue streams that will fund future content creation. Afterall, NetFlix isn't gonna rent any movies if no movies are made, so they have a clear incentive to adequately compensate content providers for their efforts.
Copyright law is based on restricting supply -- that is, by limiting the number of copies in circulation -- whereas the above is based on incentives. Historically, incentives have been more efficient at establishing an equitable market equilibrium than restrictive legislation, and that's what makes me think that these new models ought to be encouraged, not discouraged by restrictive copyright laws.
I think online gaming and software are unique products where copyright may be outdated in some respects. I agree with you there. Bear with my long answer here: Companies are being creative in how they create value for their games. Although I do think some people are paying solely because of the law, on the other hand there are those who see the value in the purchased game in the form of not getting kicked from online play, access to updates, etc. etc. So yes there are creative ways to add value to a product without copyright. BUT big, big companies are behind these games. Video games are a multi-billion dollar industry and there is a lot of money invested in them. Why? Confidence in a system, in my opinion. That's what systems of laws such as copyrights are intended (in the abstract) to do.
In situations where a developer cannot foster a relationship with the consumer and create value out of that relationship, copyright and the confidence in its enforcement is even more important. Why would Warner Brothers make a movie if they couldn't sell it or protect it once it was sold? Would anyone make a movie if once Netflix pays money for it and rents the DVD someone else could just copy the DVD and sell it to their heart's content or release it on their own website for free? Would NBC allow Hulu to show episodes of 30 Rock if that meant anyone could copy the show and start a website called "FoolYou" and give the shows away ad free with no money going to NBC? Would anyone sell license music rights to Apple if once an iTunes song was downloaded there was absolutely nothing they could do if I decided to start a website called MyTunes and give the songs away for free without DRM? I doubt it. These things are currently possible because the rights holders are confident in a system where they can protect their rights against any activity that would completely eliminate the value of their product. Take that confidence away and what are you left with? What alternative system would instill some sort of similar protection?
If copyright didn't exist then people would just contract restrictive licenses into the exchange anyway. You'd be left with a system where every interaction still left the licensee with some sort of restriction on use and we'd be back where we started, but with more paper and contracts and hoops to jump through. No one is going to give out content in a system where the value of their content is not protected.
Of course you are also right in that anything can be had for free anyway, but if the system did not technically say those things were wrong then it would be more difficult for NBC to come along and try and get rid of the free content in place of its ad supported content. Currently NBC can at least try and make it more difficult for your average consumer to find the free stuff as opposed to just going to their website, for instance, and the whole "I'm doing something illegal" factor still comes into play I think. (As far as getting users to the legitimate content). I mean I am assuming we agree on the fact that a content creator, such as NBC, rightfully deserves the fruits of its labors.
Copyright law is not based on restricting supply. Copyright law's sole function is protecting the bundle of rights in a creative work for the benefit of the owner of the copyright. The law does not say that a certain number of copies should be in circulation or that X amount of the book needs to be printed. The law mandates nothing other than putting a name to the bundle of rights. Copyright law doesn't obligate anyone to do anything; what the holder of the rights wants to do with their creation is entirely up to them. Print a bajillion copies? Fine. Print zero? Fine. Restrictions are created by the market, and eliminating copyright wouldn't do anything to that market other than make people think of alternative means of protecting their work.
Everything you're talking about is founded on the principle of IP being a commodity. Eliminating copyright would just make people think of other ways to make their IP a commodity and restrict its distribution.
In regards to gaming, particularly online, I think developers are realizing what you are talking about though. Copyright in that respect may be outdated as its enforcement mechanism simply does not protect them adequately, and they need to seek alternate means of adding value.
Mise
isle of lucy
You're right, it is about confidence. And I feel far more confident buying from an official, branded company such as iTunes than a cheap knock-off like MyTunes. Nobody wants a knock-off product. But if they do want a knock off, there's nothing stopping them from buying a knock-off. The added value of iTunes is in its brand, its ubiquity, and because it is genuinely easy to use and syncronise with your iPod. The knock-off MyTunes? Who knows what kind of company that is, what kind of virus or spyware it's going to install, what the owners are going to do with your credit card details, etc etc. And on the internet, critical mass is the most important factor in the success of a company. Companies who reach a certain number of users just take off, they gain a massive online presence, and they make a lot of money. If you wanna buy a book, the first place you go to Amazon, not any of the hundreds of other online bookshops out there. Auctions? Ebay. Social networking? Facespace. Maps? Google. Videos? YouTube.
The confidence that will encourage content providers to continue to produce is the exact same confidence that will encourage people to use Amazon, Google and iTunes.
And if your favourite show is produced by NBC...?
That's right, you just go on their website. Wouldn't you rather have a product delivered by a reputable company, such as NBC, than some dodgy Russian torrent site, where all sorts of porn pop-ups and scary hackers are lurking, waiting to pounce just as your mum walks in?
I don't know what it's like in America, but I understand you can buy guns at Wal-mart. Personally, I'd rather buy a gun from Wal-mart (or a legal gunshop) than heading down to my local ghetto, finding a nice friendly gang, and getting one much cheaper there. Even though I'd save money, I'd rather the convenience and the peace of mind I get from buying at Wal-mart. And I think the vast majority of internet users (or their parents) would agree.
Yes, it allows the holder a legal means by which to control the number of copies in circulation. If something is easily copyable, like a CD, it prevents people from making multiple copies, and thereby diminishing its value (supply goes up, price goes down).
And yes, you're right, in the absence of legal means, perhaps companies would invent technological means to restrict supply, such as DRM. But DRM is now no longer a law enforcement tool, and is simply a "feature" of the product -- a feature that consumers can vote against with their $. Or not. iTunes is more successful than Amazon, despite Amazon selling DRM free music (and cheaper too). The point is, the equilibrium will be established by a set of incentives, and by the value of the bundled product, resulting in a much more efficient market for IP.
I concede that branding is such a powerful tool that people will go to NBC or iTunes or Amazon to get their stuff, but I think these brands don't obtain the power they wield without the laws allowing them to police their brand. Now I recognize this is treading into trademark here, and we are not talking about that, but taking a content creator's stuff hurts the bottom line of a brand name just as much as ruining their brand with shoddy knock offs does. It would be very easy to create an inviting legitimate site, or even perhaps a rip-off site where no one could tell the difference, to go watch shows or download music from. Lots of people go to Hulu to get their TV shows. Without copyright restrictions Hulu could build their own brand by advertising on TV and appearing perfectly legitimate, whilst ripping off as many shows as they wanted without paying anyone a dime.
Corporate decision makers in this industry are paranoid scaredy-cats that want a lot of assurances that whatever they do has legal protections. If they didn't have this giant bludgeoning club to wield against rip-offs they wouldn't be very inclined to make anything.
Also, we are talking about a limited field: the benefits, illusory or otherwise, for big corporations. What about the little guys? The guy that develops an amazing new program in his basement, or the small film crew that makes a well received independent film? As it currently stands these people are on the same playing field, legally speaking, when they make something new as any large corporation would be. Without copyright as soon as they release it to the world, anyone could gobble it up and release it under their much larger and more trusted brand and shut the little guy out. Copyright protects everyone, so eliminating it would have to include something other than pure market forces so that small creators have just as much incentive to innovate as large, well known ones. How do we ensure this as well?
Similar threads
