Why Do Copyright Monopolists Think They Can Just Take Somebody Else’s Work? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Do Copyright Monopolists Think They Can Just Take Somebody Else’s Work?

#11

Post by taproot » Mon, Feb 04, 2013, 1:26 AM UTC

stch2 wrote: post #9

taproot wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we agree on a few of those points, #4 however, worries me dearly. Did you even read it? But even if all of this were not so, even if artists were indeed suffering (which they aren’t, but parasitic middlemen are), copyright would still need to be scaled back. It is now infringing on fundamental rights, and as a European citizen, I’m not prepared to give up those citizens’ rights for a multinational corporation…

You're right, I actually agree with #4 more than my previous post will admit. But I believe the unrestricted level of piracy the OP suggests should be allowed swings the pendulum too far in the opposite direction.

Indeed, IP in general is something I personally disagree with whole heartedly and completely; however, sadly, I do understand the implications and realities we face which make such a stance unworkable.

It should be noted, the only reason people are suggesting such extremes is due to the other end pushing first and foremost. Life + 50 is an absurd amount of time to keep something locked up under copyright/patent and lengthening or strengthening such laws is going counter to everything else in an age where information [in general, media included] is being made increasingly available and accessible in much larger quantities year on year.

One would assume, with all other things considered, that lengthy IP laws would be undergoing contraction opposed to expansion. They only need to be long enough to foster innovation and creation, anything more and they become counter productive and detrimental to society at large.

Re: Why Do Copyright Monopolists Think They Can Just Take Somebody Else’s Work?

#12

Post by taproot » Mon, Feb 04, 2013, 1:35 AM UTC

rvkennedy wrote: post #5

ams6110 wrote: post #2

OP is arguing against the ability to sell a "license to use" as opposed to selling ownership interest. To say that any sale must transfer ownership would pretty much render moot the whole concept of copyright and patent.

The clue is in the name: the person who owns the "copyright" is the one who has the right to copy it. This has been the case since the Licensing of the Press Act of 1662, so we shouldn't be shocked by it. You can't transfer ownership of the IP to the Avengers Movie, because only one person or entity at a time can own it. That's why for example, we license software as developers, instead of selling it to the end user.

If transfer of ownership never takes place, then why do they keep trying to call it theft?

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Re: Why Do Copyright Monopolists Think They Can Just Take Somebody Else’s Work?

#13

Post by utilitron » Mon, Feb 04, 2013, 10:10 PM UTC

taproot wrote: post #12

rvkennedy wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The clue is in the name: the person who owns the "copyright" is the one who has the right to copy it. This has been the case since the Licensing of the Press Act of 1662, so we shouldn't be shocked by it. You can't transfer ownership of the IP to the Avengers Movie, because only one person or entity at a time can own it. That's why for example, we license software as developers, instead of selling it to the end user.

If transfer of ownership never takes place, then why do they keep trying to call it theft? Sorry, couldn't help myself.

You are thinking of larceny. If you had an idea for a product and told me about it, and I then took that idea and used it. That would still be theft. It wasn't MY idea. Theft can exist as a metaphysical object.

The theft in question is production/distribution rights.

Re: Why Do Copyright Monopolists Think They Can Just Take Somebody Else’s Work?

#14

Post by stch2 » Mon, Feb 04, 2013, 11:39 PM UTC

chii wrote: post #10

stch2 wrote: post #3

So what is the ideal scenario, in the author's mind, for how creative work should be compensated? Let's say I wrote a book, and I want to get compensated for the time I spent writing the book. In his ideal world, I would ____________ ? My impression from the article is I would sell one copy to one person, that person, or future recipients of a copy, would copy it for every single other person that might want to read…

What about this: Prior to creating the work, the author solicits "sponsors" (or backers, in the kickstarter terminology). Each sponsor would recieve equal rights as the author. How much each sponsor pays is up to the negotiations between the author and the sponsors. When the negotiation/solicitation finishes, the author will be paid the agreed amount by the sponsors. This is the entirety of the money the author will…

What's the incentive to be a sponsor vs. someone who receives a copy after the work is finished?

Re: Why Do Copyright Monopolists Think They Can Just Take Somebody Else’s Work?

#15

Post by chii » Wed, Feb 06, 2013, 12:18 AM UTC

stch2 wrote: post #14

chii wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about this: Prior to creating the work, the author solicits "sponsors" (or backers, in the kickstarter terminology). Each sponsor would recieve equal rights as the author. How much each sponsor pays is up to the negotiations between the author and the sponsors. When the negotiation/solicitation finishes, the author will be paid the agreed amount by the sponsors. This is the entirety of the money the author will…

What's the incentive to be a sponsor vs. someone who receives a copy after the work is finished?

the incentive would be because either the sponsor thinks they can sell the work for profit (commercial motivation), or fan based motivation (they really like the artist's work, and would pay to see it).

The work isn't _given_ away after its done - the sponsors gets to choose what they want to do. If none of the sponsors give away the work, then it could become quite an exclusive/unique piece of work! Or, if one sponsor decides they'd like to share it for free on torrent, it would indeed destroy the business model of the sponsors who might be interested in selling the work commercially. But that's the risk they have to take.