I absolutely agree with the sentiment, but it breaks down in practice. For example, many books, movies and software have taken longer than two years to produce. Should the copyright holder be limited to two years of guaranteed monitization after having worked for what could be several more?
The question is, what is the time period in which a specific intellectual property gets saturated in the market? Over the past few decades, this time period has been shrinking at an almost exponential rate. However, the period for which creators maintain ownership over IP has been increasing.
Not enough emphasis placed upon this sentence fragment.
This is silly. It's like saying: "I took the code from your GPL project and used it in my closed source project, but really its okay because I wasn't going to make commits to your source tree anyways."
No, really, it bothers me how important copyright and licensing becomes to the tech community as a whole when FOSS is involved, yet somehow none of the importance of copyright and licensing (namely: ownership and the ability to limit or control distribution of your work) matters once something becomes, well, not open source software.
The presentation of "Closed source" and "open source," under licensing definitions, is a false dichotomy. With only the protection of moral rights from copyright, especially attribution, it's true that you couldn't enforce open-source licensing. However, if you were attempting to make a non-open-source project, and you used someone else's code, you would still be required to attribute them. It would also be impossible to have a "closed-source" project, because the only thing protecting your code would be secrecy, not a license. If that isn't enough, then additional protections are morally justified in the case of software. However, this issue has nothing to do with the aspect of copyright I'm arguing about, the financial incentivisation.
Ultimately, I cannot see how the right to restrict the copying of a work in order to have a monopoly over it as an economic good is somehow a fundamental right.
I'm absolutely positive that you don't really understand what the word monopoly means, and if you do, you don't properly know how to apply it. A monopoly situation would exist in this case if only one person or company could create and distributeallmusic, not just one particular track. This is clearly not the present situation. Yes, it is possible that the music you would prefer to listen to requires you to pay a nominal fee ($10/Album on iTunes), yet you have several alternatives in the forms of independent artists who distribute their music legally and without a fee in a public space.
In marketing, product differentiation (also known simply as "differentiation") is the process of distinguishing the differences of a product or offering from others, to make it more attractive to a particular target market. In economics, successful product differentiation leads to monopolistic competition and is inconsistent with the conditions for perfect competition, which include the requirement that the products of competing firms should be perfect substitutes.
If we take music as an economic good, there is a lot of product differentiation. Unless you're willing to suggest that you like all music equally, or at least that you have no strong tastes when it comes to music, control of the distribution of one track meets the criteria for monopolistic competition.
Timo, I'll get to your points soon. They were better than most others I've seen so far. To be honest, the main reason for my "wall of text" was to refute Nuri's equating intellectual property to property, which is one of the biggest issues I have with the common anti-piracy memes. Now that I've gone this far, though, I might as well keep going.
Please re-read those two sentences slowly and remember that plagiarism == distributing a work without change (except for the attribution)
Oh, ok, you're right on that so.. can we revisit the part about creative commons and GPL being rules governing the modification and continued distribution of a work, whereas reserving all rights is practice that is about stopping all distribution? The differences therein and the resulting nerd rage.
Then it occurred to me: What happens when you apply limited copyright to computer programs? If Windows 2000 was about to enter the public domain, would it mean someone leaking the source code couldn't be prosecuted?
Addendum75-95 years on copyright duration is awful, though. I agree it should probably be more like 10-15.
I have no problem with copyright for life of the creator. An interesting option would be for the taxpayer to pay out a scaled lump sum (based on previous sales, time since creation, art form etc.) to the artist if he releases it to the public domain before he dies.
If we take music as an economic good, there is alotof product differentiation. Unless you're willing to suggest that you like all music equally, or at least that you have no strong tastes when it comes to music, control of the distribution of one track meets the criteria for monopoly.
You can't be serious. So Mazda has a monopoly on the Miata? Apple has a monopoly on Aqua? (EDIT: Not Darwin; my bad)
If we take music as an economic good, there is alotof product differentiation. Unless you're willing to suggest that you like all music equally, or at least that you have no strong tastes when it comes to music, control of the distribution of one track meets the criteria for monopoly.
You can't be serious. So Mazda has a monopoly on the Miata? Apple has a monopoly on Aqua? (EDIT: Not Darwin; my bad)
Mazda isn't as monopolistic because cars are good substitutes for one another. However, the Miata is pretty well differentiated, so some of the qualities still hold. Apple, on the other hand, is very monopolistic. Apple goes to a lot of effort to make sure that their products are extremely different from the rest, or at the very least to give the consumer the impression that there is no substitute for an Apple product. Economically, it is important to note that the actual difference is just as relevant as the perceived difference. What matters is the correlation of demand for one with the demand for the other. So, the more of a "rabid fanbase" Apple gets, the more monopolistic they are.
In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos , alone or single + polein , to sell) exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.
Apple perfectly meets the definition, in fact, when it comes to operating systems. By restricting the use of their OS to Apple hardware, they have a monopoly over the operating system.
I have no problem with copyright for life of the creator.
Only if there were either statutory royalties or other accommodations for remixing, parody, mashups, and other derivative creative works.
That of course depends very much on what these "other accommodations" are. For example, in additon to simple monetary compensation (statutory royalties, micro payments for mashups, government compensation etc.) there is the added dimension of the artists image / persona. It would seem to be within the right of a musician not to be known for supplying the soundtrack to a snuff-porn movie.
Parody (Starwars kid, farting Letterman, etc.) and slander aside, say the Beatles (or what remains of them) really really really don't like hip hop. Would Dangermouses Grey Album still be OK?
Also, Lackofcheese: Monopolies are not illegal. Misusing them is. Charging c99 hardly qualifies.
I'm not arguing that they are illegal... konistherad was just challenging me on the idea that copyright is a limited monopoly (which everyone else here seems to accept, mind you). I had to explain it to him...
@Timo's previous rebuttals. Yes, I overstretched myself. Nuri's approach got me incensed, and I took an overly grandiose baseline when all I wanted to do was refute her points. I didn't have the time to put together an argument against copyright, but any way of showing that copyright, as it currently is, is no longer of overall benefit to public good, is sufficient.
Copyright isn't the only possible way of making sure creators get money for creating.
O'rly? Please explain. I am quite certain that copyright is actually the only way to guarantee that the artist gets money (assuming there is demand). All other means (concerts, book signings, lectures, etc) require additional assumptions, or payment up front a la commissions or patronage.Copyright, too, requires a lot of assumptions. For one, it assumes the presence of copyright law. If you can assume legal justification, then a lot of things could be legalised. The other assumptions are demand, as you said, and the fact that people will in fact uphold the copyright law. That's quite a few assumptions, in fact. Besides which, a 100% guarantee isn't a necessity in the first place, especially since demand is never a certainty to begin with. As far as non-copyright-based mechanisms, I can name several. I think the threshold pledge system is one of the best alternative models. In addition, if we can detach ourselves from the concept of copyrighted media as a "good," we can start to look at economic systems that are more service-based and consequently don't rely on copyright to function.
Economically speaking, data has no value - it can be copied indefinitely at nearly zero cost. The attempt to package data into a "good" that can be possessed, bought and sold is itself a concept that defies the reality of the situation.
Data can be packaged and sold as a good, this has been done for as long as there have been consulting firms. What you are actually trying to say is that it is impractical for someone to do it with music in a way that would ensure the non-proliferation of said music.
What consulting firms provide is a service, not a good. It is precisely this kind of paradigm shift that is in order in the modern world. I think that the entertainment industry needs to shift to service-based models to keep up with society.
The problem with equating property to intellectual property is that there is a fundamental difference between the two. In the case of tangible property, in order to attain something someone else must lose it. This is simply not the case for intellectual property.
This is a false analogy wherein the only value of property is to wholly and exclusively own it. There are innumerable ways of attributing value to property depending on the form of ownership, usage, intrinsic value etc. Intellectual property is just slightly easier to replicate.
I'm not making an analogy, I'm refuting Nuri's. Also, intellectual property is not slightly easier to replicate, it's a heck of a lot (almost infinitely) easier to replicate. In addition, if an economic good can be replicated, you can sell it for however much it cost you to replicate it. You can't do that with intellectual property because the two are fundamentally different.
Ultimately, I cannot see how the right to restrict the copying of a work in order to have a monopoly over it as an economic good is somehow a fundamental right. It quite plainly isn't. It's merely an issue of balancing one public good (having works in the public domain) against another (authors being reimbursed for their works).
I agree, there are definitely more important, even fundamental, rights than copyright. Authors being reimbursed is not a public good though, people being incentivized to become artists, authors and musicians is.
Yeah. I'm sorry I equated the two, but it seems we're working under the idea that such incentive has to be financial, so it was a reasonable mistake to make. I would gladly discuss non-financial incentives.
If your entire argument against copyright boils down to 1)It can't be enforced and 2)The artist ain't missing the song I copied, then it is a poor argument indeed. A much more realistic and constructive criticism would be going after why it has to extend 90(or however many) years beyond the authors death, what ways technology can help cut out the middle man between artist and consumer, how to appropriately scale damages in a time when infringement is perpetrated by individuals and not only corporations, how to implement provisions for "abandoned" works etc.
Yeah, I'm sorry. I didn't have the time to construct a full argument, and I was focusing on Nuri's points because they needed refutation. A lot of her points were highly problematic. Ultimately I agree with the core argument in the U.S. constitution, but I cannot agree with justifications that come from saying that copyright is a fundamental right (possibly a subset of property rights). It's not. It's a mechanism for public good (at best), not a fundamental right. Copyright should only be in place so long as it promotes progress.
While it is a better argument to show that the current copyright model does not, in fact, promote progress, I do still think that an inability to enforce copyright is easily a sufficient argument against it. It is also very much sufficient justification for the entertainment industry to find better business models, ones that focus on services rather than goods, and are not reliant on copyright.
konistherad was just challenging me on the idea that copyright is a limited monopoly (which everyone else here seems to accept, mind you). I had to explain it to him...
Truth be told, you are correct and I was fighting the wrong battle. After reading I concede that a monopoly is held over a particular product by copyrighting it. I had never really thought about it in that light before.
However, this issue has nothing to do with the aspect of copyright I'm arguing about, the financial incentivisation.
So, in your opinion, financial incentives are a negative side-effect of copyright?
It's a mechanism for public good (at best), not a fundamental right. Copyright should only be in place so long as it promotes progress.
While it is a better argument to show that the current copyright model does not, in fact, promote progress, I do still think that an inability to enforce copyright is easily a sufficient argument against it. It is also very much sufficient justification for the entertainment industry to find better business models, ones that focus on services rather than goods, and are not reliant on copyright.
I can't lie, as a producer of intellectual property this rubs me the wrong way regardless. This is work, compensated or not, that I have taken very seriously and placed a lot of effort into. It is, by all rights, mine. Your mindset seems to be one of dictating to me what is the correct (and apparently the only) way to license and distribute my work, limiting the avenues that I have to market and capitalize on it. It seems like you're stepping on my toes and limiting the choices I have.
Copyright needs to be changed such that the term is much smaller, perhaps a year or two. Also, it should only apply to a monopoly on commercial uses of your work. All non-commercial uses should be fair uses. However, attribution should be enforced for all eternity.
This is a far more reasonable solution. Enforceability would no longer be an issue since commercial use is far easier to catch, and much rarer. Additionally, there would be far less copyrights to infringe upon at any one time, but in particular because waiting for the copyright to expire would in fact be a reasonable option.
From the moral rights, though, attribution isn't the only issue. Are the other moral rights (see below) to be upheld as well?
the right to have a work published anonymously or pseudonymously, and the right to the integrity of the work.
I think the "moral rights," upheld for eternity, should be completely separate from the economic incentive. The fact that the right to attribution is currently being held under the wing of copyright law is making it much easier for those with a vested interest in copyright to mislead the public by citing plagiarism as a major reason we need to have copyright...
The term "copyright" should be reserved for the economic aspects.
However, this issue has nothing to do with the aspect of copyright I'm arguing about, the financial incentivisation.
So, in your opinion, financial incentives are a negative side-effect of copyright?
Not at all. I'm arguing that the only valid justification of copyright is the justification in the U.S. constitution. I'm arguing that financial incentivisation, as a way of promoting authors to create more works, is the only valid reason to have (economic) copyright. I'm pretty sure that was clear in my earlier post. Specifically, I'm mostly in agreement with the "moral rights" associated with copyright, specifically attribution. The economic rights granted are ridiculous, but the core justification in the U.S. Constitution is quite powerful. To refute copyright, we need to demonstrate that it no longer serves the public good, or that there is a better way of promoting progress. Attribution is an essential moral right that shouldn't even be part of this discussion; nor should it be under the umbrella term "copyright."
I can't lie, as a producer of intellectual property this rubs me the wrong way regardless. This is work, compensated or not, that I have taken very seriously and placed a lot of effort into. It is, by all rights, mine. Your mindset seems to be one of dictating to me what is the correct (and apparently the only) way to license and distributemywork, limiting the avenues that I have to market and capitalize on it. It seems like you're stepping on my toes and limiting the choices I have.
The work is yours. However, I am not suggesting to place any restrictions on how you can distribute and use your work. That is always up to you. Copyright, however, restricts everyone else's ability to distribute and use your work.
Yes. Even with copyright, you don't have that right in the long term (once your copyright runs out), so the final say was never yours at all. It has always belonged to society.
So as a producer of content I shouldnothave the final say in who does and does not get to utilize my work?
Yes. You should not have the final say. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few in this case. Current intellectual property laws are holding back the progress of science and art, not advancing it. If a change in the law, as I have suggested, removes your incentive to produce work, that's fine. There are plenty of other people who are producing more and better despite lack of financial incentive. If copyright were modified, those people would become even more productive. Even if you choose to stop producing, the overall benefit to society from the less restrictive regulation will far outweigh the loss of the people who decide to cease producing.
Also, I would argue that if copyright law were changed to only limit commercial uses, and allow all non-commercial uses to be fair, that you would suffer no financial setback. Some business models may have to change. Some rich people would be less rich. But as a society we would all be richer, and creators of art and or science would still be able to pay the bills.
So as a producer of content I shouldnothave the final say in who does and does not get to utilize my work?
I don't think you should, to be honest. That's why I suggest statutory royalties, which is already used in the music industry.
In the United States, while the right to use copyrighted music for making records for public distribution... is an exclusive right of the composer, the Copyright Act provides that once the music is so recorded, anyone else can record the composition/song without a negotiated license but on the payment of the statutory compulsory royalty.
If I write a song, anyone in the world can cover it in any context. They have to pay me a mandated royalty, but I cannot refuse this royalty. The artist gets due compensation for his creation, and a new work is simultaneously created. I strongly feel that this concept should be applied more globally, as the moral right to non-alterability serves no useful purpose if proper attribution is enforced.
At the base level I'm almost completely in agreement with Scott.
Also, I would argue that if copyright law were changed to only limit commercial uses, and allow all non-commercial uses to be fair, that you would suffer no financial setback. Some business models may have to change. Some rich people would be less rich. But as a society we would all be richer, and creators of art and or science would still be able to pay the bills.
The only exception is that I feel that any such change in business models would also have the impact that "commercial misuse" would cease to be a problem. I also feel that such business models are inherently much more desirable than copyright. I guess an easing period for copyright would make sense - slowly work it down to the level Scott suggests, and then remove it altogether.
True, but for that period during which I had a limited monopoly on my work I would assume I had some level of control over it. I agree that the current duration is far too long, and that a reduction of that time period would be in the best interest of society as a whole. However, we must remember that content creators are also part of society, and they want a say in how their work is being distributed during their rightful period of limited monopoly.
(and yes, the phrase: "exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" does grant rights to the content creator)
Only if there were either statutory royalties or other accommodations for remixing, parody, mashups, and other derivative creative works.
Even in cases where there is clear financial gain ALA the latest Girl Talk album? Also addressed by Rym.
EDIT: wow, Rym shot my argument down before I finished posting it. I suppose you can disregard the first paragraph, tho I want to read over his stuff more thoroughly. EDIT^2: Thanks guys for being patient with me. I guess its fair to say I have a lot to learn on this topic, and this is really doing a good job of breaking down a lot of the notions I had surrounding copyright.
Connected thought: we're basically arguing about collective vs. personal gain, right?
True, but for that period during which I had a limited monopoly on my work I would assume I had some level of control over it. I agree that the current duration is far too long, and that a reduction of that time period would be in the best interest of society as a whole. However, we must remember that content creators are also part of society, and they want a say in how their work is being distributed during their rightful period of limited monopoly.
(and yes, the phrase: "exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" does grant rights to the content creator)
Yes, copyright as it is gives you that right. However, you used the term "should," implying it is a fundamental right. What Scott and Rym are arguing, as well as myself, is that there is no such fundamental right. That economic right is only granted to you as a way to encourage you to be creative.
Here's my perspective on how it should be: Every last member of society has a say in how your work is used. As the author, you have far greater influence, but that doesn't mean you have exclusive control (Exclusive control != "a say."). Nor do you need to have the legal right to exert greater influence as an author. A combination of social forces and attribution will give you that by default.
this is really doing a good job of breaking down a lot of the notions I had surrounding copyright.
Good. However, the vast majority of people also have these ideas about copyright(insert controversial issue here), and they also need to be stimulated to actually think about the positions they hold. At the very least, if this forum has made one person rethink copyright, we have vastly surpassed our track record with religion.
Good. However, the vast majority of people also have these ideas aboutcopyright(insert controversial issue here), and they also need to be stimulated to actually think about the positions they hold.
That's why I come here. Good people who enjoy participating in healthy, intellectual debate about topics we don't always see eye-to-eye on. Seriously, I don't think you could ask for much more.
Provide even a single logical argument in favor of the veracity of any religion, and we can have that discussion. No one has ever done this.
The only other argument we can have is whether or not the assumed falsity of a religious claim counters the claimed net benefit of said false claim. No one, however, has put this secondary argument forth in an articulate manner.
Do either of these, and there can be a great debate about the topic.
You know, I might find the time to put forth an argument in favor of religion in my university holidays, which actually start on Friday for me. It's hard to do since I'm against religion, but with the time it would be something to make an effort for. What I meant by my comment is that I wish more religious people would in fact put forward logical arguments and be willing to accept logical arguments from the opposing side, because that is indeed why we can't have a good debate on religion.
Blind Faith in the supernatural, you mean. The not thinking about the things you have faith in. For example, I have faith in the FRC to support each other in times of crisis. This is based on me observing their behavior and tight bonds that have existed since college. However, this has not been scientifically observed and tested.
There are plenty of other people who are producing more and better despite lack of financial incentive.
I disagree to the highest degree. You seem to have absolutely no grasp of how much work, special knowledge and time goes into producing quality music, books, movies etc. Or is it that you do not hold the people who do the grunt worker in any regard. Remember that without the financial incentive, not only does the artist go unpaid but also the producer, sound technician, camera guy etc. etc.. While I will agree that there are individuals who are very talented artists and who produce art in great amounts without the promise of compensation, removing money from the system will certainly discourage anyone to pay large amounts of money to get trained in a skill without an industry. The end result will be crappier art; youtube poop by the bucket load.
I do still think that an inability to enforce copyright is easily a sufficient argument against it.
In a free society, there is no possible way to enforce any law barring personal police officers / exploding neck collars. Again what you really want to say is that since it is so easy to get away with breaking the law, there shouldn't be a law. This is a different argument altogether, and very susceptible to the counter argument that it is easier to extend the arm of the law than to demolish the copyright system (something Washington is doing all the time).
What consulting firms provide is aservice, not agood. It is precisely this kind of paradigm shift that is in order in the modern world. I think that the entertainment industry needs to shift to service-based models to keep up with society.
Consulting firms say they produce a service, if you have any brain at all you know they provide a product (in the sense that there is virtually zero cost to replicate from customer to customer). Of course if they actually do more than slap together parts from their toolbox, the model becomes one of commission. What you perhaps mean with a service oriented entertainment industry is concerts, exhibitions and artist promotion, which I certainly agree the music industry should concentrate more on.
In addition, if an economic good can be replicated, you can sell it for however much it cost you to replicate it.
Hell no you can't. Product piracy, or bootlegging, is way older than music piracy and certainly illegal.
At the base level I'm almost completely in agreement with Scott.
Dear Spaghetti Monster! I find myself in the same predicament (at least the second paragraph).
So as a producer of content I shouldnothave the final say in who does and does not get to utilize my work?
I don't think you should, to be honest. That's why I suggest statutory royalties, which is already used in the music industry.
Careful Rym, there is a big difference between doing a cover which is essentially a reproduction, and everything else you can fit under the moniker "utilize my work" as konistehrad put it. Basically this goes back to my question about the right to control not only your work but also your own image (arguably the most essential "product" of an artist) by limiting how and with what/whom you are associated.
Take Bill Watterson for example, there is not a single item of clothing, crockery or garden utensil with Calvin and Hobbes on it that is legal. You could argue that Watterson wasn't harmed financlially in the least by all the bootlegging, he just didn't want merchandising to cheapen his creation. Or take Dave Sims "Bone" and his refusal to include contemporary pop songs in the movie version of the comic. Should the movie studio have been able to pay a staturtory licencing fee and gone ahead with raping Dave Sims work?
Crap! Thread is moving too fast, when are you guys going to sign up for Google developer status and make the forums with Wave? I could really use multiuser simultaneous editing.
Comments
Timo, I'll get to your points soon. They were better than most others I've seen so far. To be honest, the main reason for my "wall of text" was to refute Nuri's equating intellectual property to property, which is one of the biggest issues I have with the common anti-piracy memes. Now that I've gone this far, though, I might as well keep going.
Then it occurred to me: What happens when you apply limited copyright to computer programs? If Windows 2000 was about to enter the public domain, would it mean someone leaking the source code couldn't be prosecuted?
Apple, on the other hand, is very monopolistic. Apple goes to a lot of effort to make sure that their products are extremely different from the rest, or at the very least to give the consumer the impression that there is no substitute for an Apple product. Economically, it is important to note that the actual difference is just as relevant as the perceived difference. What matters is the correlation of demand for one with the demand for the other. So, the more of a "rabid fanbase" Apple gets, the more monopolistic they are. Apple perfectly meets the definition, in fact, when it comes to operating systems. By restricting the use of their OS to Apple hardware, they have a monopoly over the operating system.
Parody (Starwars kid, farting Letterman, etc.) and slander aside, say the Beatles (or what remains of them) really really really don't like hip hop. Would Dangermouses Grey Album still be OK?
Yes, I overstretched myself. Nuri's approach got me incensed, and I took an overly grandiose baseline when all I wanted to do was refute her points.
I didn't have the time to put together an argument against copyright, but any way of showing that copyright, as it currently is, is no longer of overall benefit to public good, is sufficient. O'rly? Please explain. I am quite certain that copyright is actually the only way to guarantee that the artist gets money (assuming there is demand). All other means (concerts, book signings, lectures, etc) require additional assumptions, or payment up front a la commissions or patronage.Copyright, too, requires a lot of assumptions. For one, it assumes the presence of copyright law. If you can assume legal justification, then a lot of things could be legalised. The other assumptions are demand, as you said, and the fact that people will in fact uphold the copyright law. That's quite a few assumptions, in fact. Besides which, a 100% guarantee isn't a necessity in the first place, especially since demand is never a certainty to begin with.
As far as non-copyright-based mechanisms, I can name several. I think the threshold pledge system is one of the best alternative models.
In addition, if we can detach ourselves from the concept of copyrighted media as a "good," we can start to look at economic systems that are more service-based and consequently don't rely on copyright to function. What consulting firms provide is a service, not a good. It is precisely this kind of paradigm shift that is in order in the modern world. I think that the entertainment industry needs to shift to service-based models to keep up with society. I'm not making an analogy, I'm refuting Nuri's.
Also, intellectual property is not slightly easier to replicate, it's a heck of a lot (almost infinitely) easier to replicate. In addition, if an economic good can be replicated, you can sell it for however much it cost you to replicate it. You can't do that with intellectual property because the two are fundamentally different. Yeah. I'm sorry I equated the two, but it seems we're working under the idea that such incentive has to be financial, so it was a reasonable mistake to make. I would gladly discuss non-financial incentives. Yeah, I'm sorry. I didn't have the time to construct a full argument, and I was focusing on Nuri's points because they needed refutation. A lot of her points were highly problematic. Ultimately I agree with the core argument in the U.S. constitution, but I cannot agree with justifications that come from saying that copyright is a fundamental right (possibly a subset of property rights). It's not. It's a mechanism for public good (at best), not a fundamental right. Copyright should only be in place so long as it promotes progress.
While it is a better argument to show that the current copyright model does not, in fact, promote progress, I do still think that an inability to enforce copyright is easily a sufficient argument against it. It is also very much sufficient justification for the entertainment industry to find better business models, ones that focus on services rather than goods, and are not reliant on copyright.
From the moral rights, though, attribution isn't the only issue. Are the other moral rights (see below) to be upheld as well? I think the "moral rights," upheld for eternity, should be completely separate from the economic incentive. The fact that the right to attribution is currently being held under the wing of copyright law is making it much easier for those with a vested interest in copyright to mislead the public by citing plagiarism as a major reason we need to have copyright...
The term "copyright" should be reserved for the economic aspects.
Not at all. I'm arguing that the only valid justification of copyright is the justification in the U.S. constitution. I'm arguing that financial incentivisation, as a way of promoting authors to create more works, is the only valid reason to have (economic) copyright. I'm pretty sure that was clear in my earlier post. Specifically, I'm mostly in agreement with the "moral rights" associated with copyright, specifically attribution. The economic rights granted are ridiculous, but the core justification in the U.S. Constitution is quite powerful. To refute copyright, we need to demonstrate that it no longer serves the public good, or that there is a better way of promoting progress. Attribution is an essential moral right that shouldn't even be part of this discussion; nor should it be under the umbrella term "copyright." The work is yours. However, I am not suggesting to place any restrictions on how you can distribute and use your work. That is always up to you. Copyright, however, restricts everyone else's ability to distribute and use your work.
Even with copyright, you don't have that right in the long term (once your copyright runs out), so the final say was never yours at all. It has always belonged to society.
Also, I would argue that if copyright law were changed to only limit commercial uses, and allow all non-commercial uses to be fair, that you would suffer no financial setback. Some business models may have to change. Some rich people would be less rich. But as a society we would all be richer, and creators of art and or science would still be able to pay the bills.
(and yes, the phrase: "exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" does grant rights to the content creator) Even in cases where there is clear financial gain ALA the latest Girl Talk album? Also addressed by Rym.
EDIT: wow, Rym shot my argument down before I finished posting it. I suppose you can disregard the first paragraph, tho I want to read over his stuff more thoroughly.
EDIT^2: Thanks guys for being patient with me. I guess its fair to say I have a lot to learn on this topic, and this is really doing a good job of breaking down a lot of the notions I had surrounding copyright.
Connected thought: we're basically arguing about collective vs. personal gain, right?
Here's my perspective on how it should be:
Every last member of society has a say in how your work is used. As the author, you have far greater influence, but that doesn't mean you have exclusive control (Exclusive control != "a say."). Nor do you need to have the legal right to exert greater influence as an author. A combination of social forces and attribution will give you that by default. Good. However, the vast majority of people also have these ideas about copyright(insert controversial issue here), and they also need to be stimulated to actually think about the positions they hold. At the very least, if this forum has made one person rethink copyright, we have vastly surpassed our track record with religion.
The only other argument we can have is whether or not the assumed falsity of a religious claim counters the claimed net benefit of said false claim. No one, however, has put this secondary argument forth in an articulate manner.
Do either of these, and there can be a great debate about the topic.
What I meant by my comment is that I wish more religious people would in fact put forward logical arguments and be willing to accept logical arguments from the opposing side, because that is indeed why we can't have a good debate on religion.
Take Bill Watterson for example, there is not a single item of clothing, crockery or garden utensil with Calvin and Hobbes on it that is legal. You could argue that Watterson wasn't harmed financlially in the least by all the bootlegging, he just didn't want merchandising to cheapen his creation. Or take Dave Sims "Bone" and his refusal to include contemporary pop songs in the movie version of the comic. Should the movie studio have been able to pay a staturtory licencing fee and gone ahead with raping Dave Sims work?