Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MonkeyHead]

Copyright... doesn't have much to do with plagiarism. How often have you seen the creator of a pop song or the musicians who put it together credited on an album? Not often Id imagine. Many people genuinanly believe the name of the "artist" is the name of the creator, something companies intentionally encourage since it leads to more sales, but the plagiarism is perfectly legal. It doesn't matter to the law who the creator is or that they get credited, only that the owner gets to say who makes copies and the form they take.

Also the bit about copyright being created to protect intellectual property of individuals is just false. You can go and pull up the law if you wish the intent is quite clear - its not to protect anything, it is simply to encourage more people to create stuff more often. The powers it offers creators and owners is a byproduct, not the purpose.

Having just reached out for some of my CD's I can confirm that all of them have whoever is responsible for the lyrics, musical composition and artwork is credited in the paperwork in some way. Its not on the front in big letters, but its there. Not that this changes anything about who gets to exploit the creation, or who is perceived to be the creator due to cynical marketing...

The Copyright Law of the United States intends to encourage the creation of art and culture by rewarding authors and artists with a set of exclusive rights. Federal Copyright law grants authors and artists the exclusive right to make and sell copies of their works, the right to create derivative works, and the right to perform or display their works publicly. These exclusive rights are subject to a time limit, and generally expire 70 years after the author's death.

US Copyright law is governed by the federal Copyright Act of 1976. The constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to create copyright law. Specifically, Congress has the 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. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8, (the Copyright Clause)

Whilst I am not going to disagree with you on the fact that copyright law is to encourage creation (which came as one hell of a suprise to me), it seems to me to want to encourage creation through protecting the creators by giving the copyright owners a temporary monopoly (however right or wrong as a concept this is) over distribution and derivative works. This would be less of an issue if the originators of content were the copyright holders, but this seems to very seldom be the case.

Anyway, thank you people for a most stimulating exchange of ideas. Alas, I now need to go sleep.

[Neonivek]

Copyright tends to favor big business over small ones.

[GlyphGryph]

Having just reached out for some of my CD's I can confirm that all of them have whoever is responsible for the lyrics, musical composition and artwork is credited in the paperwork in some way. Its not on the front in big letters, but its there. Not that this changes anything about who gets to exploit the creation, or who is perceived to be the creator due to cynical marketing...

This is why I explicitly mentioned pop music rather than just "music", heh. It was a point that there is no legal force against plagiarism, unless it's part of a contract, which is still just a civil matter and could cover most anything.

Whilst I am not going to disagree with you on the fact that copyright law is to encourage creation (which came as one hell of a suprise to me), it seems to me to want to encourage creation through protecting the creators by giving the copyright owners a temporary monopoly (however right or wrong as a concept this is) over distribution and derivative works. This would be less of an issue if the originators of content were the copyright holders, but this seems to very seldom be the case.

Yes, that is the method that was decided on, but I think it's important to re-evaluate methods in terms of the original goal. If the method isn't serving that purpose, there's no particular reason to keep it around, at least from purpose of respect for it's original purpose. We probably SHOULD keep it around, in some form, but I don't think we disagree all that strongly when I say the shape should be significantly different from what it is now - and that any form it takes should keep this, the explicit goal, in mind.

Anyway, thank you people for a most stimulating exchange of ideas. Alas, I now need to go sleep.

Thank you as well, I enjoyed the conversation.

[Darkmere]

I assert that I am creating my own art when I download a copy of yours

And I say writing "LordBucket" on a copy of Titus Andronicus doesn't make you William Shakespeare.

Ok. So then if you create a song, put it on CD and sell it to Bob for $20, you have received just reward for your effort. Right? And then Bob makes a copy for me.

Why should you be rewarded for Bob's labor?

Because bob wasn't the one who formed a band, organized rehearsals, went to a studio, hired the production staff to get the CD out the door, etc. etc.

So, it goes back to what I've asked before. If you go to great effort to put on a stage production, then someone records it without your knowledge, and sells all the tapes to people who now won't go see your show (and hence, pay you), the cameraman deserves every cent he made for making copies of your show, instead of you, who made the show?

[Vector]

Okay, okay. But I would like to know why you think the existent completely practical concepts of commission and work-for-hire aren't enough to ensure content creators are properly compensated? Why is the copyright system necessary on top of it, if not to enable these third parties?

Because it keeps away from the patronage system, where one dude who is very very rich commissions a work of art and then shares or doesn't share at his leisure.

If I make a book and sell one copy for $20 and then that person shares it all over the internet, then I don't think that's fair.  If they gave me $20,000, I'd probably be okay with it.  But that puts undue control in the hands of, again, the very, very rich.

I'll also note that some mathematicians I know have said that they'll make their textbooks free for all after they die.  This seems sensible.  Their patrons (the mathematical community) paid their $20,000, now it's free for everyone.

[Pnx]

This sort of thing is why I like the whole crowd sourcing movement. It allows a large group of people to finance the production of something without having the drawbacks of either just making it and hoping the sales recoup your losses, or doing it based on the commission of an organisation or person that's extremely rich. It does have some drawbacks, but it is some ways the best of both worlds.

[Leafsnail]

Yeah with crowd-sourcing you can basically let a whole bunch of people band together to give you the $20,000.

[Vector]

Exactly.  And I'd probably consider that as a process for future works, other than the fact that I'm going to want to make some set amount of profit and crowd-sourcers usually don't like that.

[alexandertnt]

LordBucket and GlyphGryth, So as far as I see now, your argument is against copyright itself and copyright entitlements, not against artists getting compensated somehow per se.

I cant say I really agree with you, but I admit given it took me a few read through's to get to this conclusion I at least think I have learnt something.

I can somewhat agree with you though in the context of publishing. In the sense that the publishers did not actually create the work but are legally entitled to the control of it for some reason. This does seem a bit wonky.

Copyright tends to favor big business over small ones.

Current law tends to, yes. Thats why I think the current laws need to be changed (and heavily nerfed). The basic concept of copyright is to favour the creator (well, idealy). Maby copyright should be untransferrable? Then perhaps publishers would stop becomming legally entitled to something they did not actually create.

I'll also note that some mathematicians I know have said that they'll make their textbooks free for all after they die.  This seems sensible.  Their patrons (the mathematical community) paid their $20,000, now it's free for everyone.

I think that the length of copyright needs to be shortened, to allow works to be accessable by all after a reasonable period of time (rather than the life+70 years or such sillyness we have now). The original point of the temporary monopoly granted by copyright is to reward the creator, so copyrighting beyond the creators life seems odd.

[GlyphGryph]

Exactly.  And I'd probably consider that as a process for future works, other than the fact that I'm going to want to make some set amount of profit and crowd-sourcers usually don't like that.

... uh, most kickstarters have quite a bit of personal profit built in. Since "salary" is usually one of their major items even for the minimum value to fund, and that is nothing but individual profit.

[Vector]

Ah, I see.  I guess I was thinking about the Sarkeesian debacle.

(Let's not discuss it, just meaning to say that a lot of detractors complained that money received > money required for creation, so I thought that was a general Kickstarter rule).


The life + 70 years thing is supposed to make it so that the heirs benefit some from their parents' creations and derivative works don't pop up the moment the creator kicks it.

I dunno.  I don't feel that good about for-profit derivative works in a live franchise, to be honest.

[alexandertnt]

The life + 70 years thing is supposed to make it so that the heirs benefit some from their parents' creations and derivative works don't pop up the moment the creator kicks it.

That is true, but their heirs have not done anything to produce the copyrighted material. It seems arbitrary that they would benefit from somone elses work.

tbh, I think copyright-for-life is too long, but I can understand the arguments for it, as opposed to the +70 bit.

[Leafsnail]

The vast, vast, vast majority of all creative work makes pretty much all the money it's ever going to make within 10 years at most.  I seriously question whether there's really any incentive to create new material in having copyright last much longer than that, and further suggest it encourages companies to keep making money form their popular but ancient IP rather than creating new ones.

[WealthyRadish]

I think there's also some concern around murdering people for their patents, but maybe I'm thinking too cynically.

[Vector]

That is true, but their heirs have not done anything to produce the copyrighted material. It seems arbitrary that they would benefit from somone elses work.

Their heirs also have not done anything to deserve other property.