innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,383
Just abolish copyright, it would be better all around.
Should unreleased material be not-subject to copyright laws?
- Thread starter aimeeandbeatles
- Start date
Mr. Dictator
A Chain-Smoking Fox
i'd love to see the day where copyrights and patents are gone, actually.
It would be a very dismal world if everyone felt as you, and very little would ever be created because there are extremely few people who can make something out of nothing. The human mind just doesn't work that way.
Copyrights on audio / video is nearing death. Just look at the hard drive of people 18-29.
Patents are very important. However I think they should expire much like patents for medication expire.
Mr. Dictator
A Chain-Smoking Fox
i don't see much of a use for patents. if anyone can make something, then anyone can make it better.
aelf
Ashen One
I guess you didn't know...
Well, that depends on what you think the purpose of copyright law is. I think it's "to promote the progress of the useful arts and sciences," to use the Framers' language. Once it starts to harm the progress of the arts and sciences, it's no longer serving its purpose and should be re-thought.
I understand "what's mine is mine," but intellectual property is something different. I don't think what I write here is "mine," and if I were to come up with a clever turn of phrase, I wouldn't expect to be able to prevent other people from using it. It's just information and I've published it. It's information, an idea, and I'm not the less if other people use it.
There's a lot of value in art being free. Other people work with it, reinterpret it, bring more things into the world. I consider maximizing the value of the art to be the goal of copyright, sought through granting monopolies to the creators for a reasonable time. I don't consider the goal to be some kind of "natural law" conception of idea ownership. Copyrights are a means to incentivize people to produce art, not the end in themselves.
Cleo
An inventor has the right to profit from his idea. Without some form of protection, if I invent a new way to do something but lack the ability to mass produce it, there's no reason for a company to pay me for the idea if they can just take it from me.
Mr. Dictator
A Chain-Smoking Fox
well i can see that, but i was speaking of the "perfect world" thing.
maybe we'll reach that day sometime. it'll probably be the same season when anarchy works though
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,383
The real purpose of copyright, when it appeared in England, was making royal control over printing easier, dressed up as "protecting the authors".
Only after that idea was first floated did people star arguing that copyright was necessary for science and art to be produced. As if all the past creative history of mankind was irrelevant. Initially the industry around copyright prospered - its existence certainly caused more money to me moved around, so it did "grew the economy". But how does that translate into actual welfare? We could also make everyone pay a "tax" on air, and that would move a lot of money around, create, at the very least, jobs for bureaucrats, lawyers, judges, policeman, etc...
Forcing people to pay a rent on knowledge is now the same thing. In the past the spread of information could be controlled, or at least that parcel of it which had to be transfered in a physical form, as books. Now? Information is as fleeting, as impossible to control, as air!
Augurey is right, copyright is dying, and good riddance. As for patents... many patent applications have been turned down for not being original. Which means that a lot of people has thought of the same thing, put it to use, without a need for the economic incentive of charging a rent for their ideas, or preventing other people from using those ideas. The world advanced quite a lot during the 19th century, scientifically and technically, without patents, or with very limited ones. There are usually two arguments put forward to support patents: one is that it is necessary for people to share what would otherwise be kept hidden as a trade secret. This is not true, a lot can be done with reverse engineering, and people will always talk anyway
; the other is that the promise of the returns from the legal monopoly are the incentive which allows research in the first place. I can only say about this one that my experience is that things would get researched and applied anyway, because those doing it are moved by a real need or desire, profiting from patents is only an afterthought.
Only after that idea was first floated did people star arguing that copyright was necessary for science and art to be produced. As if all the past creative history of mankind was irrelevant. Initially the industry around copyright prospered - its existence certainly caused more money to me moved around, so it did "grew the economy". But how does that translate into actual welfare? We could also make everyone pay a "tax" on air, and that would move a lot of money around, create, at the very least, jobs for bureaucrats, lawyers, judges, policeman, etc...
Forcing people to pay a rent on knowledge is now the same thing. In the past the spread of information could be controlled, or at least that parcel of it which had to be transfered in a physical form, as books. Now? Information is as fleeting, as impossible to control, as air!
Augurey is right, copyright is dying, and good riddance. As for patents... many patent applications have been turned down for not being original. Which means that a lot of people has thought of the same thing, put it to use, without a need for the economic incentive of charging a rent for their ideas, or preventing other people from using those ideas. The world advanced quite a lot during the 19th century, scientifically and technically, without patents, or with very limited ones. There are usually two arguments put forward to support patents: one is that it is necessary for people to share what would otherwise be kept hidden as a trade secret. This is not true, a lot can be done with reverse engineering, and people will always talk anyway
; the other is that the promise of the returns from the legal monopoly are the incentive which allows research in the first place. I can only say about this one that my experience is that things would get researched and applied anyway, because those doing it are moved by a real need or desire, profiting from patents is only an afterthought.
LesCanadiens
Deity
How, pray tell, do artists make money off their work if they don't own it? Why shouldn't artists legally own their work?
Congratulations, innonimatu, you've just destroyed art.
PeteAtoms
FormulaRandom
I think people will still make art, for art's sake. But the artist who's primary motivation is money, will go the way of the dodo. But than, i can't imagine artists putting too much effort into their art, when they would need a second job to pay the bills.
so i'm not sure how the quality of art will be, but the quantity would probably diminish.
so i'm not sure how the quality of art will be, but the quantity would probably diminish.
LesCanadiens
Deity
If you can come up with an alternative arrangement that would preserve the ability of artists to make money directly off of their work, fine. But I don't see it. All I see are a few people spouting vague generalities about how "knowledge should be free," or some other drivel.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,383
Is that sarcasm?
Because if it isn't, buy a flamethrower and pay a visit to any ancient art museum (or any museum with pre-20th century works) and burn everything down. They're obviously fooling people, none of that is art, there were no artists before everything got copyrighted!
Mr. Dictator
A Chain-Smoking Fox
if he did, we'd get him a medal.
art for money needs to be torn down, kincade by kincade.
LesCanadiens
Deity
Right, but we don't live in the 1800s any more. Do I have to explain this to you? Stop drawing all these false equivalences that do nothing to help your argument.
Mr. Dictator
A Chain-Smoking Fox
well should i start asking you permission when i quote you?
what has changed since then that is relevant here?
LesCanadiens
Deity
Artists produce something of great value and generate a tremendous amount of wealth. If anything, they should be compensate more than they are now, though that's up to the artists themselves to negotiate with publishers. No one, artist or otherwise, should be obligated to do anything for free.
What's with all the hippies on this forum?
Similar threads
