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.
Oh, I grasp it alright. The thing is that those "grunt" technicians have a lot more to worry about than copyright. As technology improves many of those people are no longer needed. Even in cases where you still do need people, you need fewer of them and for fewer hours. Instead of a whole crew of people editing video, you just need one guy with final cut. Leo Laporte is almost a one-man TV studio.
The cost of production is going down, way down. Thus, you no longer need to make insane amounts of money in order for an artistic venture to be profitable. If you make a few thousand, your album is profitable.
There are only two types of artistic productions I know of that are still incredibly expensive. Those are the blockbuster video game and the blockbuster movie. It has been well demonstrated that non-blockbuster video games can be very profitable because the costs of production are so low. It has also been demonstrated that movies with low budgets can become popular and make tons of money.
However, I would also like to point out another thing. Despite the fact that piracy is so easy to do, people who make high quality big budget games are still making money hand over fist. Nintendo still makes a ton on DS games even though everyone has an R4. Valve makes a ton on PC games even though everyone can pirate them.
Movies are no different. Despite being leaked on teh Internet, lots of people still went to see that stupid Wolverine movie. Even if it were perfectly legal to pirate these things, do you really think it will make any difference? It has been show repeatedly that people who make their books available on the Internet for free sell more real copies. Web comics that are freely available online are able to sell tons of copies in print.
Wait, I'm sorry. The people who read the web-comic online without paying are stealing.
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).I'll clarify my argument about enforceability. If the successful enforcement of copyright would cause more damage than the good brought about by copyright, then it isn't justifiable because the only purpose of copyright is progress. For example, the violation of any fundamental rights, such as privacy, in order to enforce copyright (whose main goal is solely progress) cannot be justified since the loss of such rights is extremely antithetical to progress. This is a weaker argument than the simpler one that copyright itself inherently is damaging to progress, but I think it's easier to make. Scott suggests that the latter is painfully obvious, but I don't think it's easy to show.
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 firmssaythey 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.
What I "perhaps meant" about the entertainment industry should have been quite clear. I don't know too much about consulting firms, I admit, but I was clear on the entertainment industry. With regards to consulting firms, I put forth that the data they use should be public domain, just as any other data is. In many cases, the data in fact already is in the public domain. The "value" a consulting firm can provide has nothing to do with the data itself, and everything to do with how difficult it would be to collate that data on your own. Just because I have access to data doesn't mean I have the ability to use it in a nontrival manner. The latter is indeed a valuable service, but it also doesn't rely on copyright.
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.
If "product piracy" is some kind of basic concept, why can't I apply it to rice? If I can make two bags of rice from one bag of rice, am I a criminal? Counterfeiting is not the same thing as making a perfect copy. First of all, counterfeiting mostly produces an imperfect copy. Secondly, counterfeit products can mislead the consumer by making them believe the product was made by one manufacturer when it was in fact made by another. The first issue isn't relevant to data, because data can be copied perfectly. The second issue isn't relevant either, because it's essentially covered by the right to attribution, which I have said a number of times needs to be separated from copyright. The other issue with counterfeiting is trademark violation, but I have a great idea that could sort a lot of the problems out:
I think that we need to have global agreement/law on the right to identity, which I put forth as a basic human right. A person or group of people have a right to an identity, exclusively theirs, and they have the right to an association between that identity and their works (i.e. attribution). Trademarks come hand in hand with this - a trademark is just part of your identity.
Let me quote the Berne Convention:
Independent of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to the said work, which would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation.
This has nothing to do with copyright, and everything to do with identity.
If anyone wants further discussion of the idea of identity rights, we could split it off into a new thread.
Web comics that are freely available online are able to sell tons of copies in print.
Wait, I'm sorry. The people who read the web-comic online without paying are stealing.
Hey now, we're getting back into artistic intent. The author made a conscious decision to publish both in a free, digital format and a print format. If I give my music away as MP3, but make you pay for the CD it's very similar, and well within my right. I don't think anyone is making this "mistake."
For example, the violation of any fundamental rights, such as privacy, in order to enforce copyright (whose main goal is solely progress) cannot be justified since the loss of such rights is extremely antithetical to progress.
The irony, as I see it, is that the Constitution specifically calls out copyright while being devoid of any reference or implicit granting of an individual's right to privacy. I think the spirit of what you're saying is fair, however.
Yeah, I'm no expert on U.S. law. If I was to go with an argument completely based in U.S. law, rather than just an argument based on the legal precept of the Copyright Clause, there are perhaps better approaches. Ultimately, the U.S. is the key to the rest of the world on the issue, though. It seems the closest I'd get with U.S. law to what I said previously about privacy is the Fourth Amendment, but as long as copyright infringement is a criminal offense rather than just a civil offense, it seems that an argument can't be made on that front. If you can demonstrate that lack of privacy is an enormous impediment to progress, that would be enough, though, since copyright is only validated if it promotes progress.
I guess it's a matter of finding an indisputable sign of failure to progress in modern copyright and then building a strong argument on it.
I guess it's a matter of finding an indisputable sign of failure to progress in modern copyright and then building a strong argument on it.
I think that's it, really. You'd need to find a solid legal basis to force corporations to change their business models. In the meantime, it's uplifting that nothing is stopping entrepreneurs from opening up shops with just this kind of open mentality in mind. In fact, I would love to see how they perform against more established businesses. After all, if there's money in changing the model it will happen quickly, and of its own accord.
Oh, I grasp it alright. The thing is that those "grunt" technicians have a lot more to worry about than copyright. As technology improves many of those people are no longer needed. Even in cases where you still do need people, you need fewer of them and for fewer hours. Instead of a whole crew of people editing video, you just need one guy with final cut. Leo Laporte is almost a one-man TV studio.
You are dodging my point, regardless of how many / few people are needed in the future, you still need a guy that has invested time and money in becoming good at Final Cut. There has to be the promise of a job in the production of art to make people do this.
The cost of production is going down, way down. Thus, you no longer need to make insane amounts of money in order for an artistic venture to be profitable. If you make a few thousand, your album is profitable.
So your point would be copyright until you have made enough money? This is actually an idea I could get behind. Say, after you have made your investment back a hundred fold, the work goes into the public domain.
However, I would also like to point out another thing. Despite the fact that piracy is so easy to do, people who make high quality big budget games are still making money hand over fist. Nintendo still makes a ton on DS games even though everyone has an R4. Valve makes a ton on PC games even though everyone can pirate them.
Movies are no different. Despite being leaked on teh Internet, lots of people still went to see that stupid Wolverine movie. Even if it were perfectly legal to pirate these things, do you really think it will make any difference?
If it were perfectly legal to pirate, I certainly think it would make a difference. If there is a cheaper (even if t is crappier) alternative people will go for it. Why do you think studios don't release DVDs concurrently with the theatrical release?
If it were perfectly legal to pirate, I certainly think it would make a difference. If there is a cheaper (even if t is crappier) alternative people will go for it. Why do you think studios don't release DVDs concurrently with the theatrical release?
They don't release DVDs concurrently because they are stupid as shit. If they released them at the same time, then people would walk into theatres, then buy DVDs immediately. They could even sell them in vending machines in the theatre lobby, and they would make serious bank. Also, people who don't go to the theater (like me) would go out and get DVDs while a movie is fresh in the mind. Instead, by the time the DVD comes out, everyone has forgotten about the movie, and they have to spend money remarketing it.
People who resell the same product in multiple formats seem to think that releasing the formats all at the same time will cannibalize sales. Comic book people think the same thing. If they put the hardcover, floppies, and trade out all at the same time, everyone will buy the trade, and nobody will buy the hardcover. However, if they release them one at a time, people will somehow rebuy the same thing in mulitple formats.
It's insane. Someone who likes hardcovers is going to buy the hardcover. Someone who likes floppies, will buy floppies. Someone who likes DVDs will buy a DVD. Someone who likes the theater will buy a theater ticket. Someone who wants something in mulitple formats will buy it in mulitple formats regardless of the release dates. You're only going to hurt your bottom line by release them separately because you will have to spend more on remarketing the different releases.
I am not equating intellectual property to real property. If you read the whole thing, I specifically stated that even though I am not losing anything tangible when someone rips my work off outside my market area, I have still lost control of the use of my work, and I think that is bad. Copyright does not simply protect against financial loss. Intellectual property may not be a tangible item, but you can still lose things relating to it, such as the right to determine how it is used. It is, in fact, your property.
I never said our current copyright system was The One True Way. I am simply explaining why the system is working the way it is working, and the theory that it is based on. It has, to a limited extent, been successful just by value of providing a theoretical protection. Nevermind that it is hard as shit for small-time people to assert that protection.
In fact, it is an outdated system that we are having a harder and harder time enforcing because of globalization and the internet. Don't misunderstand my explanation as my personal views...I don't want people ripping off my shit, but that doesn't mean I think the current system is the best way to do that. So many people are distributing their work for free on the internet that we had to come up with our own set of publicly-available licenses to attach to the works. People are giving away their work for free and STILL SELLING PRINT COPIES to the same people that got the free ones, so it obviously works. The biggest problem the record companies have is that there is a barrier between the artist and the consumer; when you have a personal connection with your consumers, they have a tendency to WANT to support you financially. Podcasts, podiobook-to-print authors, bloggers, and indie musicians are all examples of this model. The record companies are becoming obsolete, or at least less useful, which means they will have less control of the market. Thus they are throwing what equates to a temper-tantrum. All of this I acknowledge.
However, I don't think anyone should ever be forced to give away their work for free. It should be a choice. Giving away free stuff is a proven marketing model, but that doesn't mean I want the freedom to choose it myself taken away. There's a reason that copyright protection exists. It may need to evolve, but it's better than nothing.
ETA: As for Rym's opinion that creators should not be able to determine how their content is used, well...that is simply a difference of opinion. This is a subjective issue that doesn't really have an absolute "right" or "wrong" answer, and arguing about foundational opinions really doesn't get us much of anywhere. I think it's wrong for someone to take something I wrote, publish it themselves, and make money off of it without my consent, but that's my opinion.
If it were perfectly legal to pirate, I certainly think it would make a difference. If there is a cheaper (even if t is crappier) alternative people will go for it. Why do you think studios don't release DVDs concurrently with the theatrical release?
They don't release DVDs concurrently because they are stupid as shit. If they released them at the same time, then people would walk into theatres, then buy DVDs immediately. They could even sell them in vending machines in the theatre lobby, and they would make serious bank. Also, people who don't go to the theater (like me) would go out and get DVDs while a movie is fresh in the mind. Instead, by the time the DVD comes out, everyone has forgotten about the movie, and they have to spend money remarketing it.
Just because WE only go see movies in the theater if the are big-screen-worthy doesn't mean everyone does. Many people go see movies in the theater because they want to see it NOW and it's the only way. You and I might be perfectly happy for UP to come out on DVD because we think it'll be just as good on the small screen, but a lot of people went to see it in the theater because it was the only place they could see it now.
I thought the money actually went to the record label or the movie production house, all of those people you mention are payed a salary and earn on a job done, not on how much the movie/game/cd sells, but then again I might be mistaken.
Also, I think they sell enough to make a decent living, I think its time people rid themselves of the idea that to be an actor/actress/musician, you have to be a millionaire to live off the trade, so if they were to aim for the same salary of a doctor for example, they could sell their product for much less and thus probably reduce the amount of piracy no?
If it were perfectly legal to pirate, I certainly think it would make a difference. If there is a cheaper (even if t is crappier) alternative people will go for it. Why do you think studios don't release DVDs concurrently with the theatrical release?
They don't release DVDs concurrently because they are stupid as shit. If they released them at the same time, then people would walk into theatres, then buy DVDs immediately. They could even sell them in vending machines in the theatre lobby, and they would make serious bank. Also, people who don't go to the theater (like me) would go out and get DVDs while a movie is fresh in the mind. Instead, by the time the DVD comes out, everyone has forgotten about the movie, and they have to spend money remarketing it.
Just because WE only go see movies in the theater if the are big-screen-worthy doesn't mean everyone does. Many people go see movies in the theater because they want to see it NOW and it's the only way. You and I might be perfectly happy for UP to come out on DVD because we think it'll be just as good on the small screen, but a lot of people went to see it in the theater because it was the only place they could see it now.
People like this do exist. Contrary to what would normally make sense, it is because of these very people that you would make more money with a simultaneous release.
Valve software noticed that they had a lot of piracy of their video games in Russia. It's no surprise. Russia has big time piracy. But rather than try DRM or IP law, Valve tried to figure out why there was such piracy there, and how they could fix it. They found out, no surprise to us, that the problem was that their games were priced too highly for Russians. Also, the games were being released in Russia much later they were in the rest of the world. So what did they do? They lowered prices and released the game at the same time everywhere in the world. What happened? Sales up, piracy down.
Someone who likes a movie enough to see it in the theatre and also buy a DVD will do both no matter what time they are released.
Someone who only goes to the theatre because they need to see it now will sometimes buy a DVD and sometimes buy a theater ticket if both are available at the same time. Who cares which they choose? You get money either way, and the customer is happier.
There are people who pirate movies, usually shaky cams, during the period of time between the theatrical release and the DVD release. Releasing the DVD sooner will not actually lose any sales, but will actually cause there to be increased sales among this group of people.
The problem with all these things is that copyright-based businesses have been operating under a certain set of assumptions for a very long time. Those assumptions have been around so long, that people are unable to fathom them being incorrect. It's as if they are laws of physics that can't be changed, but really they are nothing more than human ideas. For various reasons, businesses are extremely risk-averse and will not dare do anything that goes against these assumptions. The result is that we have very little data about how viable other business models are. Also, the world has changed so much, socially and technologically, that you would be crazy to believe that all of these assumptions still hold true, if they ever held true. On top of that, what little data we do have on these other business models, thanks to companies like Valve and people like Jonathan Coulton, clearly show you can make more money with less strict copyright.
They don't release DVDs concurrently because they are stupid as shit. If they released them at the same time, then people would walk into theatres, then buy DVDs immediately. They could even sell them in vending machines in the theatre lobby, and they would make serious bank. Also, people who don't go to the theater (like me) would go out and get DVDs while a movie is fresh in the mind. Instead, by the time the DVD comes out, everyone has forgotten about the movie, and they have to spend money remarketing it.
Just because WE only go see movies in the theater if the are big-screen-worthy doesn't mean everyone does. Many people go see movies in the theater because they want to see it NOW and it's the only way. You and I might be perfectly happy for UP to come out on DVD because we think it'll be just as good on the small screen, but a lot of people went to see it in the theater because it was the only place they could see it now. This is a bit of a tangent, so I apologize in advance. Personally, I go to see movies in the theatre because I enjoy the theatre experience, not so much for inability to wait for a DVD release. It is a nice, relatively cheap fall back activity when other events aren't possible or available. I love seeing films with a group a friends, a film club, or just on a date with Mister, particularly at the independent movie theatre near us.
As for Rym's opinion that creators should not be able to determine how their content is used, well...that is simply a difference of opinion.
I think it's a difference of viewpoint. Rym is not a content creator, he is a service provider. The content he does create (GeekNights) is distributed free of charge. You and I, on the other hand, are active in the creation of intellectual property as a product and have a vested interest in seeing compensation for it.
EDIT:
However, I don't think anyone should ever be forced to give away their work for free. It should be a choice. Giving away free stuff is a proven marketing model, but that doesn't mean I want the freedom to choose it myself taken away.
Let me just say this is the point I've been trying to make since this morning.
To expound: as a content-provider, in the service-based economy you're describing (and presuming there is demand for my work), suggest to me how I might make money.
Some of you have suggested that it's not your problem, because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few when it comes to the advancement of the arts. Humor me. Right now the picture you're presenting is not realistic. Currently copyright protects my ability to make money; (I think) many of you have said that this shouldn't be a priority for copyright law, and realistically - as a creator - this doesn't make sense to me.
And, sharing a personal story, my buddy and I have been running a fairly successful website for a couple of years now. I've had parts of work from that site ripped off. There's a Greek office supplies company selling hundreds of thousands of notebooks with art from this project. That same project has had art ripped off for a South American designer shoes website, as well as tabletops and menu covers of several Hong Kong cafes. The list goes on. The reason I bring it up is that, as a creator, I have a vested, reasonable interest in protections on my work. You guys have a very lofty idea of how copyright ought to work (not knocking it), and I want to know how it joins to reality.
That should be attributed. Under Scott's copyleft concept, you should be credited for that, and since not, you seek damages (As I understand it). However, I leave that question for Scott to answer more in depth.
I suppose my issue with present copyright law is that I fail to understand how 95 years of royalties encourage creativity. If I know that I can write one catchy song and potentially ride out the rest of my career on royalties and lawsuits, then what is the impetus to KEEP producing songs? If you panic over piracy, you're not doing it for the art, you're doing it for the money. To quote one of my favorite publications, AdBusters:
Piracy… the word sends shivers up the spine as it evokes hungry Somali pirates seizing cargo and holding hostages. But online piracy is not the same, to make a copy is not a depletion, but a multiplication of the original. Online piracy, we should really call it online replication, is a beautiful thing for it offers an easy litmus test for authentic culture. Take, for example, two hypothetical films: one made by struggling idealistic art students and the other by a big name director backed by a major studio with a multimillion dollar budget and nationwide advertising campaign. If each film was pirated and watched by a million people we could reasonably expect that the film students would be ecstatic (without an advertising budget their film would have been doomed to the art house circuit) while the big name director would be furious. Why? Because the film students are doing it for art while the director is doing it for the money. This is, in simple terms, what I believe the political potential of piracy to be — piracy allows us to quickly ascertain the authenticity of a cultural product. Roughly, we could say that an authentic cultural production would be one that does not suffer from piracy because the artistic goal is in line with remix culture. Let us endorse the artists who support piracy and pirate the ones who don’t. In this way we will be helping authentic culture while destroying inauthentic, capitalist culture.
There is no swifter way to bring about the de-commercialization of art than to undercut the profit motive. Likewise, there is no better way to promote a blackspot culture than to actively copy and distribute the cultural productions that speak to us and the future weÂ’d like to build. If we pirate everything, how will the artists get paid? That is precisely the point: piracy opens up the possibility of imagining new ways of being and new ways of supporting the potential of art to change the world.
That's why copyright needs to be torn to shreds. Artists for art, like Cory Doctorow, don't care about their works being copied; they know that it merely increases their audience, fans, and, subsequently, customers. Big media artists panic because it eats away at their bottom line, because they suffer from the sort of indifferent piracy Rym described: pirates download their work because they otherwise wouldn't pay a dollar for it. Artists for art frequently win with piracy.
In the interest of full disclosure, I'm an infoanarchist. However, that doesn't change the validity of the "litmus test" argument.
WindUp, you didn't answer the single test he put forward, which in a capitalist society like that found in the United States is the only litmus test that matters:
Tell me how I get paid.
EDIT: I couldn't resist pulling this out of the article you linked:
That is precisely the point: piracy opens up the possibility of imagining new ways of being and new ways of supporting the potential of art to change the world.
Sorry, but it's nothing but hand-waving mixed with smoke and mirrors. He has deferred monitization to our "imagination" while leaving legitimate creators without a viable business model. Forgive me if I'm less than impressed.
Scott and others have already mentioned it: You get paid by expansion of an audience that cares for your work. Piracy is a zero-sum game; pirates will usually never have paid for material they pirated. I may or may not have downloaded Puzzle Quest for DS. I never would have paid for that. Now, on the other hand, I may or may not have also downloaded some tracks by Animal Collective. In the event that I did, it would be worth noting that I paid $150 to see them at a music festival in August. Would I have come to enjoy said band without free and immediate access to their work? Probably not. Do they stand to make more from their concert sale to me than from said CDs? Almost definitely.
It's not the government's job to guarantee you payment. It's the artists job to make something worth money. I could have downloaded all of Transmetropolitan. There's a reason why I am working a 40hr week at slightly more than minimum wage to pay for the other 3 books of the series I haven't yet bought. With music it's slightly different though, as artists currently stand to make much more from a ticket sale than a record sale. I support Ellis and Panda Bear equally.
That is precisely the point: piracy opens up the possibility of imagining new ways of being and new ways of supporting the potential of art to change the world.
I gotta agree with konistehrad. This is what someone says from an armchair. We're in the trenches.
It's not the government's job to guarantee you payment.
Then you go on to mention your federally mandated minimum wage job. It does reek of irony.
Either way, your train of thought is: increase popularity, reap benefits. Cool, I can understand that so far. Now, place that in an only-copyleft situation with software. Now it is no longer your right to charge for your product. As to say, you can, but when the first copy hits everyone has a right to it with no royalty or penalty from buyer zero. Yes, you now have an incredibly popular piece of software that everyone loves and enjoys, but reaping the benefits of it are difficult, if not impossible.
This kind of bulk-popularity-dump-merch idea works well with things like webcomics, where a tangible product fits nicely in the scope of the product. For example, selling shirts with slogans or characters or books have proven time and time again to be effective monetization strategies. Likewise bands have seen this kind of success (though it helps to have some bankroll behind you when you start up; hi Trent Reznor).
I really don't believe software really matches either of these, namely because it is not always "art" or even always enjoyable. Sure, Mozilla has probably sold a few t-shirts, but would it ever be enough to defer the cost of developing an entire web browser? Certainly not! It is primarily community and volunteer work, which is great, but sometimes there are projects that simply require a bunch of people to put their heads down and get some work done, and the most effective way to do that is money.
Here's my problem: I am a programmer. I love programming. I want to do it for a living. Copy-left renders that dream null, as now my time must be spent attempting to find other revenue streams, such as answering phones/forum posts for "paid support" or producing merch for my adoring fanbase who can't wait to get the name of my new relational database printed on their shirts. I don't want to do that. I want to program, and copyright makes it a possibility.
Then you go on to mention your federally mandated minimum wage job. It does reek of irony.
Can't argue that. Oh well. However, I was talking more about the creative community and not the labor force.
I really don't believe software really matches either of these, namely because it is not always "art" or even always enjoyable.
Then why not fit software under a different type of copyright system? What works for one medium isn't necessarily the best for everything.
I don't really have a problem with artists wanting to make money. I admire creativity and aspire to it, and I think in one way or another it should be safeguarded. However, I think everyone is doing so in a draconian fashion, and we need to seriously work on limiting the amount of time people can live off of one creative work.
Also, I think artists *should* enforce their copyrights. It's their right to do so. However, Mommy-and-Daddy Copycartel should never think for a fucking second that just because Miley Cyrus is signed to their precious label and rakes in millions upon million of dollars of teeny-bopper allowance money that they have some sort of Mandate of Heaven to search my personal traffic and force my ISP to do the same. A person's pipeline should share the same privacy as a dresser drawer in their home. There is a fine line between enforcement and criminal searches and extortion, and it seems to me like the RIAA and the MPAA enjoy pissing all over it. And don't even get me started on Sarko's Three Strikes law.
I don't really have a problem with artists wanting to make money. I admire creativity and aspire to it, and I think in one way or another it should be safeguarded. However, I think everyone is doing so in a draconian fashion, and we need to seriously work on limiting the amount of time people can live off of one creative work.
Also, I think artists *should* enforce their copyrights. It's their right to do so. However, Mommy-and-Daddy Copycartel should never think for a fucking second that just because Miley Cyrus is signed to their precious label and rakes in millions upon million of dollars of teeny-bopper allowance money that they have some sort of Mandate of Heaven to search my personal traffic and force my ISP to do the same. A person's pipeline should share the same privacy as a dresser drawer in their home.
There is a fine line between enforcement and criminal searches and extortion, and it seems to me like the RIAA and the MPAA enjoy pissing all over it. And don't even get me started on Sarko's Three Strikes law.
And that's 1, 2, 3 things we're in perfect agreement on. I put forward a 10 year copyright earlier. What the copyright cartels have been doing is flatly illegal, and the French HADOPI is basically excommunication in the digital age.
Ultimately we shouldn't let the bad behaviour of the mega-corps get in the way of remembering that there are dedicated, little guys out there trying really hard to make it by any means possible. We're sorry if sometimes that means we have to come waving copyright in your face, but this is capitalism, and we do need to make money.
Sorry, konistehrad's doing most of the talking here - we're actually in the middle of a big move. Just wanted to say that I agree with you, WindUpBird - there's a middle ground for sure. That woman getting sued for $80,000 a song is - while legal - a pretty obvious sign that there's a problem. However, the hard tack some people have been taking means the little guy gets screwed ... I haven't read anything yet that convinces me otherwise. Always ready and willing to change my mind, though.
Scott and others have already mentioned it: You get paid by expansion of an audience that cares for your work.
Mmm, that audience sure tastes delicious. However, the blood that constantly leaks from the roof of my home built from said audience is a little annoying, and gets all over my sketches. Oh well, I'll just call it "texture."
I have to pay for certain things in life. If I can't make that money doing creative things, I have to make it some other way. That means less time spent on creative works. It's lovely to talk about the ideal situation, but it doesn't work out in reality. Maybe if we all lived somewhere where we got 2 months of paid vacation every year instead of 2 weeks, this would be feasible. I love drawing, but I don't have time to do much of it and pay my bills at the same time. Hence the failed attempt at a webcomic. I just don't make enough money at my day job for my hobbies to all be given away for free.
I do agree that shorter copyright terms are called for. 10 years seems like a perfectly reasonable time to me, perhaps with an option to apply for an extension if you can show continue substantial income from said work. I also agree that the RIAA and their ilk are completely bonkers in their attempts to enforce their copyright. However, the issue for me is how they are going about it, not that they are attempting to protect a copyright. The way they try to find these people is a gross violation of privacy to begin with, and a multi-million-dollar industry suing an individual for millions of dollars just doesn't sit right. I won't argue with their right to prosecute, but the penalties really should be more reasonable for individuals.
While it's obvious that the copyright period should be reduced significantly as well as a change in the fines and punishments for violating such copyrights, I think the concept of Fair Use should be broadened significantly to allow more development of creative and derivative works.
And, sharing a personal story, my buddy and I have been running a fairly successful website for a couple of years now. I've had parts of work from that site ripped off. There's a Greek office supplies company selling hundreds of thousands of notebooks with art from this project. That same project has had art ripped off for a South American designer shoes website, as well as tabletops and menu covers of several Hong Kong cafes. The list goes on. The reason I bring it up is that, as a creator, I have a vested, reasonable interest in protections on my work. You guys have a very lofty idea of how copyright ought to work (not knocking it), and I want to know how it joins to reality.
Those people are doing two things wrong. One, they are infringing upon attribution. Two, they are using your work for commercial purposes. Nobody thinks that any of those things are, or should be, allowed. Under what Rym proposed, there would be a default royalty. You wouldn't be able to tell them they could not use your art, but they would have to pay you royalties, thus you would make money.
The things that would be changed under the Rym and Scott copyright regime are that your fans would be able to share and remix your art freely for non-commercial purposes. If someone wanted to download all your stuff, put it on a USB stick, and share it with all their friends, then so be it. They're not making money. They're not mis-attributing your work or plagiarising. They're just spreading your love. There's nothing wrong with that, and it should not be illegal, but under current copyright law, it is.
As for programming, it is probably the least copyright dependent job in the entire universe. The thing is that even if all of the software you write is free and open source, most people are not programmers. They will have no ability whatsoever to customize that open source software to their specific needs. And who better to do that customization than the guy who wrote the thing in the first place?
Rym's company was using a particular open source wiki. They needed a specific modification for their business that did not exist. They paid the original creator of said wiki to do it. The company I work for is building a web site on an open source framework. We are very likely to pay people who have a lot of experience with said framework to build things on top of it for our specific needs.
Programmers have a huge luxury in that off the shelf software really doesn't work for most businesses. If it does work, it works shittily. Every different company has a very different and specific need that can only be satisfied by hiring programmers to make it happen.
Also, remember that people are very stupid. Take Nessus security scanner, for example. It's free and open source. Yet, there is also a pay version. What does the pay version have? No real difference. Do people buy it? Yes, companies buy it all the time, even if they know it's free and open source. It has been shown time and time again that even if something is available for free, many will opt to pay. It defies all logic, but it is true.
I mean, think about Microsoft Windows. The fact that it costs consumers hundreds of dollars to get a copy is ludicrous. We're just using it for our own personal needs. I think that what is currently considered pirating a copy of Windows should be fair use. Does this mean Microsoft is screwed? Hell no. In fact, I think it would be smarter of them to do just that. Make Windows free as in beer. What will happen? Everyone will install it everywhere like crazy, and everyone will upgrade to Windows 7 so ludicrously fast, your head will spin. The result is that businesses will have to all upgrade to Windows 7. Of course, they are making commercial use of the software, and thus, they will have to pay. Microsoft should just double the commercial price of the software. Companies will either have to pay, or move to Linux. If a huge move to Linux occurrs, that's big money coming towards the people who are giving their code away. I thought you couldn't make money giving your stuff away for free?
While it's obvious that the copyright period should be reduced significantly as well as a change in the fines and punishments for violating such copyrights, I think the concept of Fair Use should be broadened significantly to allow more development of creative and derivative works.
How would you broaden Fair Use, specifically? I think this is a topic that could use a little more fleshing out.
If a huge move to Linux occurrs, that's big money coming towards the people who are giving their code away. I thought you couldn't make money giving your stuff away for free?
And so far it would appear you can't.
The sheer capital that Microsoft pulls from Windows and its associated products blows all of its open source competitors out of the water. With a large portion of that capital they hire a tremendous number of developers; an estimated 2000 on Windows 7 alone! Do you anticipate that Novell's Suse division, Red Hat and Ubuntu, even combined, have that kind of manpower behind them? I attest that they most likely do not.
Also, who is paying for in-house customizations for Left 4 Dead? Who's sending cash your way for the latest iteration of Fallout? Who wants to pay for the new Grand Theft Auto 4 expansion even when they are under absolutely no obligation to do so? Consumers aren't stupid: given the choice between "pay" and "not pay" they will overwhelmingly choose "not pay" unless given substantial reason not to do so. There is little room to make a "commercial only" case for games, which will lead to nothing but a reversal of the incredible upward trend we've seen in gaming over the last several years.
Sorry, konistehrad's doing most of the talking here - we're actually in the middle of a big move. Just wanted to say that I agree with you, WindUpBird - there's a middle ground for sure. That woman getting sued for $80,000 a song is - while legal - a pretty obvious sign that there's a problem. However, the hard tack some people have been taking means the little guy gets screwed ... I haven't read anything yet that convinces me otherwise. Always ready and willing to change my mind, though.
Definitely true, and I have family members who started as the little guy (paid their own way through art school and starved up the ladder), so I get what you're saying. I myself do a fair bit of writing, and would eventually like to be published. I suppose my hardline stance is more of a kneejerk reaction to the huge abuses of current copyright law, and I would definitely like to see a 10yr term like konistehrad suggested. I also think that, were you to impose a 10yr limit, your fair use, non-commercial, and attribution clauses would have to be extremely forward-thinking and well-worded, and that a user's data privacy should be guaranteed (excluding the obvious times exceptions need to be made; stings on pedophiles and the like).
However, above all, we need to make sure that no one ever, ever speaks like Mary Bono did during the hearings for the Copyright Term Extension Act (sickening trash that it is):
Actually, Sonny [her husband, and the nick-namesake of the Act] wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. ... As you know, there is also Jack Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress.
You wouldn't be able to tell them they could not use your art, but they would have to pay you royalties, thus you would make money.
That def doesn't fly with me. If someone wanted to use something from Johnny Wander to promote a religion, or maybe a political party backed by white supremacists, or a warehouse party or club show where there is rampant drug use, I would have a moral problem with it - and furthermore, it trashes my brand. And in this particular case, real people are represented within the comics, and directly accessible to their audience - it's practically defamation of character.
(And before anyone brings it up - yes, we did put ourselves out there in a comic strip posted on the web. The REASON we are comfortable doing this is because we have legal control over where those images end up.)
What if there's a porno where all the "actors" engaging in acts of terrible debauchery are wearing NIke shirts? Keep in mind, the porn studio printed the shirts themselves and paid Nike a royalty for use of the logo.
What about sports stars that put their faces on products? Their image is used for commercial purposes to be sure, but should they honestly not have control over who gets to use it? I'm going to put X basketball star's face on my penis enlargement products, but it's cool, I'm totally paying him his royalty.
Branding and Brand Identity has been glossed over. I've been working with brand identity for a couple of years now, and under the Rym and Scott Copyright Act, there is no place for it. That is not a realistic scenario.
Also, who is paying for in-house customizations for Left 4 Dead? Who's sending cash your way for the latest iteration of Fallout? Who wants to pay for the new Grand Theft Auto 4 expansion even when they are under absolutely no obligation to do so? Consumers aren't stupid: given the choice between "pay" and "not pay" they will overwhelmingly choose "not pay" unless given substantial reason not to do so. There is little room to make a "commercial only" case for games, which will lead to nothing but a reversal of the incredible upward trend we've seen in gaming over the last several years.
Explain the phenomenon of Valve in Russia. In Russia, there basically is no piracy law. Downloading a copy of a game is effectively legal, even if it is illegal on paper. Yet, when Valve made their games available on the same day as the rest of the world, at reasonable prices, Russian gamers bought it and piracy decreased.
There was no question that these gamers knew how to pirate. There is no question that it was effectively legal. Yet, when the business model changed, people paid anyway. Pirates are just underserved customers.
Think about this. You go to the movie theater. There's a movie you want to see. You are willing to pay $15 to see it. There's another movie that's not looking so good. You aren't willing to buy that ticket. But what if that ticket were free? Unless the movie is really bad, odds are you're going to be getting a double feature.
That's what's happening with piracy. Piracy is not causing anyone to lose money. It's merely causing more people to get enjoyment. Look at World of Goo. No DRM, 90% piracy rate. Seems bad, right? No, it's not bad. In fact, it's great. Let's pretend that World of Goo were impossible to pirate. Would the game have sold more copies? I predict that it would not. Those 10% of people who bought it would still buy it. Those 90% of players who pirated would not have bought it. They also would not have played it. I also think that in the specific case of World of Goo, they made a big mistake in trying to sell their game for $20. It's a good game, but it's so small, it's not worth $20. Natural Selection 2 is selling for $20. If World of Goo were only $1, I think they would have sold more than 20 times as many copies, and made more money.
Bad business and risk-averse business is no excuse for maintaining the harmful copyright regime.
Comments
The cost of production is going down, way down. Thus, you no longer need to make insane amounts of money in order for an artistic venture to be profitable. If you make a few thousand, your album is profitable.
There are only two types of artistic productions I know of that are still incredibly expensive. Those are the blockbuster video game and the blockbuster movie. It has been well demonstrated that non-blockbuster video games can be very profitable because the costs of production are so low. It has also been demonstrated that movies with low budgets can become popular and make tons of money.
However, I would also like to point out another thing. Despite the fact that piracy is so easy to do, people who make high quality big budget games are still making money hand over fist. Nintendo still makes a ton on DS games even though everyone has an R4. Valve makes a ton on PC games even though everyone can pirate them.
Movies are no different. Despite being leaked on teh Internet, lots of people still went to see that stupid Wolverine movie. Even if it were perfectly legal to pirate these things, do you really think it will make any difference? It has been show repeatedly that people who make their books available on the Internet for free sell more real copies. Web comics that are freely available online are able to sell tons of copies in print.
Wait, I'm sorry. The people who read the web-comic online without paying are stealing.
I think that we need to have global agreement/law on the right to identity, which I put forth as a basic human right. A person or group of people have a right to an identity, exclusively theirs, and they have the right to an association between that identity and their works (i.e. attribution). Trademarks come hand in hand with this - a trademark is just part of your identity.
Let me quote the Berne Convention: This has nothing to do with copyright, and everything to do with identity.
If anyone wants further discussion of the idea of identity rights, we could split it off into a new thread.
It seems the closest I'd get with U.S. law to what I said previously about privacy is the Fourth Amendment, but as long as copyright infringement is a criminal offense rather than just a civil offense, it seems that an argument can't be made on that front. If you can demonstrate that lack of privacy is an enormous impediment to progress, that would be enough, though, since copyright is only validated if it promotes progress.
I guess it's a matter of finding an indisputable sign of failure to progress in modern copyright and then building a strong argument on it.
People who resell the same product in multiple formats seem to think that releasing the formats all at the same time will cannibalize sales. Comic book people think the same thing. If they put the hardcover, floppies, and trade out all at the same time, everyone will buy the trade, and nobody will buy the hardcover. However, if they release them one at a time, people will somehow rebuy the same thing in mulitple formats.
It's insane. Someone who likes hardcovers is going to buy the hardcover. Someone who likes floppies, will buy floppies. Someone who likes DVDs will buy a DVD. Someone who likes the theater will buy a theater ticket. Someone who wants something in mulitple formats will buy it in mulitple formats regardless of the release dates. You're only going to hurt your bottom line by release them separately because you will have to spend more on remarketing the different releases.
I never said our current copyright system was The One True Way. I am simply explaining why the system is working the way it is working, and the theory that it is based on. It has, to a limited extent, been successful just by value of providing a theoretical protection. Nevermind that it is hard as shit for small-time people to assert that protection.
In fact, it is an outdated system that we are having a harder and harder time enforcing because of globalization and the internet. Don't misunderstand my explanation as my personal views...I don't want people ripping off my shit, but that doesn't mean I think the current system is the best way to do that. So many people are distributing their work for free on the internet that we had to come up with our own set of publicly-available licenses to attach to the works. People are giving away their work for free and STILL SELLING PRINT COPIES to the same people that got the free ones, so it obviously works. The biggest problem the record companies have is that there is a barrier between the artist and the consumer; when you have a personal connection with your consumers, they have a tendency to WANT to support you financially. Podcasts, podiobook-to-print authors, bloggers, and indie musicians are all examples of this model. The record companies are becoming obsolete, or at least less useful, which means they will have less control of the market. Thus they are throwing what equates to a temper-tantrum. All of this I acknowledge.
However, I don't think anyone should ever be forced to give away their work for free. It should be a choice. Giving away free stuff is a proven marketing model, but that doesn't mean I want the freedom to choose it myself taken away. There's a reason that copyright protection exists. It may need to evolve, but it's better than nothing.
ETA:
As for Rym's opinion that creators should not be able to determine how their content is used, well...that is simply a difference of opinion. This is a subjective issue that doesn't really have an absolute "right" or "wrong" answer, and arguing about foundational opinions really doesn't get us much of anywhere. I think it's wrong for someone to take something I wrote, publish it themselves, and make money off of it without my consent, but that's my opinion.
Also, I think they sell enough to make a decent living, I think its time people rid themselves of the idea that to be an actor/actress/musician, you have to be a millionaire to live off the trade, so if they were to aim for the same salary of a doctor for example, they could sell their product for much less and thus probably reduce the amount of piracy no?
Valve software noticed that they had a lot of piracy of their video games in Russia. It's no surprise. Russia has big time piracy. But rather than try DRM or IP law, Valve tried to figure out why there was such piracy there, and how they could fix it. They found out, no surprise to us, that the problem was that their games were priced too highly for Russians. Also, the games were being released in Russia much later they were in the rest of the world. So what did they do? They lowered prices and released the game at the same time everywhere in the world. What happened? Sales up, piracy down.
Someone who likes a movie enough to see it in the theatre and also buy a DVD will do both no matter what time they are released.
Someone who only goes to the theatre because they need to see it now will sometimes buy a DVD and sometimes buy a theater ticket if both are available at the same time. Who cares which they choose? You get money either way, and the customer is happier.
There are people who pirate movies, usually shaky cams, during the period of time between the theatrical release and the DVD release. Releasing the DVD sooner will not actually lose any sales, but will actually cause there to be increased sales among this group of people.
The problem with all these things is that copyright-based businesses have been operating under a certain set of assumptions for a very long time. Those assumptions have been around so long, that people are unable to fathom them being incorrect. It's as if they are laws of physics that can't be changed, but really they are nothing more than human ideas. For various reasons, businesses are extremely risk-averse and will not dare do anything that goes against these assumptions. The result is that we have very little data about how viable other business models are. Also, the world has changed so much, socially and technologically, that you would be crazy to believe that all of these assumptions still hold true, if they ever held true. On top of that, what little data we do have on these other business models, thanks to companies like Valve and people like Jonathan Coulton, clearly show you can make more money with less strict copyright.
EDIT: Let me just say this is the point I've been trying to make since this morning.
Tell me how I get paid.
To expound: as a content-provider, in the service-based economy you're describing (and presuming there is demand for my work), suggest to me how I might make money.
Some of you have suggested that it's not your problem, because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few when it comes to the advancement of the arts. Humor me. Right now the picture you're presenting is not realistic. Currently copyright protects my ability to make money; (I think) many of you have said that this shouldn't be a priority for copyright law, and realistically - as a creator - this doesn't make sense to me.
And, sharing a personal story, my buddy and I have been running a fairly successful website for a couple of years now. I've had parts of work from that site ripped off. There's a Greek office supplies company selling hundreds of thousands of notebooks with art from this project. That same project has had art ripped off for a South American designer shoes website, as well as tabletops and menu covers of several Hong Kong cafes. The list goes on. The reason I bring it up is that, as a creator, I have a vested, reasonable interest in protections on my work. You guys have a very lofty idea of how copyright ought to work (not knocking it), and I want to know how it joins to reality.
I suppose my issue with present copyright law is that I fail to understand how 95 years of royalties encourage creativity. If I know that I can write one catchy song and potentially ride out the rest of my career on royalties and lawsuits, then what is the impetus to KEEP producing songs? If you panic over piracy, you're not doing it for the art, you're doing it for the money. To quote one of my favorite publications, AdBusters:That's why copyright needs to be torn to shreds. Artists for art, like Cory Doctorow, don't care about their works being copied; they know that it merely increases their audience, fans, and, subsequently, customers. Big media artists panic because it eats away at their bottom line, because they suffer from the sort of indifferent piracy Rym described: pirates download their work because they otherwise wouldn't pay a dollar for it. Artists for art frequently win with piracy.
In the interest of full disclosure, I'm an infoanarchist. However, that doesn't change the validity of the "litmus test" argument.
It's not the government's job to guarantee you payment. It's the artists job to make something worth money. I could have downloaded all of Transmetropolitan. There's a reason why I am working a 40hr week at slightly more than minimum wage to pay for the other 3 books of the series I haven't yet bought. With music it's slightly different though, as artists currently stand to make much more from a ticket sale than a record sale. I support Ellis and Panda Bear equally.
Either way, your train of thought is: increase popularity, reap benefits. Cool, I can understand that so far. Now, place that in an only-copyleft situation with software. Now it is no longer your right to charge for your product. As to say, you can, but when the first copy hits everyone has a right to it with no royalty or penalty from buyer zero. Yes, you now have an incredibly popular piece of software that everyone loves and enjoys, but reaping the benefits of it are difficult, if not impossible.
This kind of bulk-popularity-dump-merch idea works well with things like webcomics, where a tangible product fits nicely in the scope of the product. For example, selling shirts with slogans or characters or books have proven time and time again to be effective monetization strategies. Likewise bands have seen this kind of success (though it helps to have some bankroll behind you when you start up; hi Trent Reznor).
I really don't believe software really matches either of these, namely because it is not always "art" or even always enjoyable. Sure, Mozilla has probably sold a few t-shirts, but would it ever be enough to defer the cost of developing an entire web browser? Certainly not! It is primarily community and volunteer work, which is great, but sometimes there are projects that simply require a bunch of people to put their heads down and get some work done, and the most effective way to do that is money.
Here's my problem: I am a programmer. I love programming. I want to do it for a living. Copy-left renders that dream null, as now my time must be spent attempting to find other revenue streams, such as answering phones/forum posts for "paid support" or producing merch for my adoring fanbase who can't wait to get the name of my new relational database printed on their shirts. I don't want to do that. I want to program, and copyright makes it a possibility.
I don't really have a problem with artists wanting to make money. I admire creativity and aspire to it, and I think in one way or another it should be safeguarded. However, I think everyone is doing so in a draconian fashion, and we need to seriously work on limiting the amount of time people can live off of one creative work.
Also, I think artists *should* enforce their copyrights. It's their right to do so. However, Mommy-and-Daddy Copycartel should never think for a fucking second that just because Miley Cyrus is signed to their precious label and rakes in millions upon million of dollars of teeny-bopper allowance money that they have some sort of Mandate of Heaven to search my personal traffic and force my ISP to do the same. A person's pipeline should share the same privacy as a dresser drawer in their home. There is a fine line between enforcement and criminal searches and extortion, and it seems to me like the RIAA and the MPAA enjoy pissing all over it. And don't even get me started on Sarko's Three Strikes law.
Ultimately we shouldn't let the bad behaviour of the mega-corps get in the way of remembering that there are dedicated, little guys out there trying really hard to make it by any means possible. We're sorry if sometimes that means we have to come waving copyright in your face, but this is capitalism, and we do need to make money.
I have to pay for certain things in life. If I can't make that money doing creative things, I have to make it some other way. That means less time spent on creative works. It's lovely to talk about the ideal situation, but it doesn't work out in reality. Maybe if we all lived somewhere where we got 2 months of paid vacation every year instead of 2 weeks, this would be feasible. I love drawing, but I don't have time to do much of it and pay my bills at the same time. Hence the failed attempt at a webcomic. I just don't make enough money at my day job for my hobbies to all be given away for free.
I do agree that shorter copyright terms are called for. 10 years seems like a perfectly reasonable time to me, perhaps with an option to apply for an extension if you can show continue substantial income from said work. I also agree that the RIAA and their ilk are completely bonkers in their attempts to enforce their copyright. However, the issue for me is how they are going about it, not that they are attempting to protect a copyright. The way they try to find these people is a gross violation of privacy to begin with, and a multi-million-dollar industry suing an individual for millions of dollars just doesn't sit right. I won't argue with their right to prosecute, but the penalties really should be more reasonable for individuals.
The things that would be changed under the Rym and Scott copyright regime are that your fans would be able to share and remix your art freely for non-commercial purposes. If someone wanted to download all your stuff, put it on a USB stick, and share it with all their friends, then so be it. They're not making money. They're not mis-attributing your work or plagiarising. They're just spreading your love. There's nothing wrong with that, and it should not be illegal, but under current copyright law, it is.
As for programming, it is probably the least copyright dependent job in the entire universe. The thing is that even if all of the software you write is free and open source, most people are not programmers. They will have no ability whatsoever to customize that open source software to their specific needs. And who better to do that customization than the guy who wrote the thing in the first place?
Rym's company was using a particular open source wiki. They needed a specific modification for their business that did not exist. They paid the original creator of said wiki to do it. The company I work for is building a web site on an open source framework. We are very likely to pay people who have a lot of experience with said framework to build things on top of it for our specific needs.
Programmers have a huge luxury in that off the shelf software really doesn't work for most businesses. If it does work, it works shittily. Every different company has a very different and specific need that can only be satisfied by hiring programmers to make it happen.
Also, remember that people are very stupid. Take Nessus security scanner, for example. It's free and open source. Yet, there is also a pay version. What does the pay version have? No real difference. Do people buy it? Yes, companies buy it all the time, even if they know it's free and open source. It has been shown time and time again that even if something is available for free, many will opt to pay. It defies all logic, but it is true.
I mean, think about Microsoft Windows. The fact that it costs consumers hundreds of dollars to get a copy is ludicrous. We're just using it for our own personal needs. I think that what is currently considered pirating a copy of Windows should be fair use. Does this mean Microsoft is screwed? Hell no. In fact, I think it would be smarter of them to do just that. Make Windows free as in beer. What will happen? Everyone will install it everywhere like crazy, and everyone will upgrade to Windows 7 so ludicrously fast, your head will spin. The result is that businesses will have to all upgrade to Windows 7. Of course, they are making commercial use of the software, and thus, they will have to pay. Microsoft should just double the commercial price of the software. Companies will either have to pay, or move to Linux. If a huge move to Linux occurrs, that's big money coming towards the people who are giving their code away. I thought you couldn't make money giving your stuff away for free?
The sheer capital that Microsoft pulls from Windows and its associated products blows all of its open source competitors out of the water. With a large portion of that capital they hire a tremendous number of developers; an estimated 2000 on Windows 7 alone! Do you anticipate that Novell's Suse division, Red Hat and Ubuntu, even combined, have that kind of manpower behind them? I attest that they most likely do not.
Also, who is paying for in-house customizations for Left 4 Dead? Who's sending cash your way for the latest iteration of Fallout? Who wants to pay for the new Grand Theft Auto 4 expansion even when they are under absolutely no obligation to do so? Consumers aren't stupid: given the choice between "pay" and "not pay" they will overwhelmingly choose "not pay" unless given substantial reason not to do so. There is little room to make a "commercial only" case for games, which will lead to nothing but a reversal of the incredible upward trend we've seen in gaming over the last several years.
However, above all, we need to make sure that no one ever, ever speaks like Mary Bono did during the hearings for the Copyright Term Extension Act (sickening trash that it is):This is the insanity we're up against.
(And before anyone brings it up - yes, we did put ourselves out there in a comic strip posted on the web. The REASON we are comfortable doing this is because we have legal control over where those images end up.)
What if there's a porno where all the "actors" engaging in acts of terrible debauchery are wearing NIke shirts? Keep in mind, the porn studio printed the shirts themselves and paid Nike a royalty for use of the logo.
What about sports stars that put their faces on products? Their image is used for commercial purposes to be sure, but should they honestly not have control over who gets to use it? I'm going to put X basketball star's face on my penis enlargement products, but it's cool, I'm totally paying him his royalty.
Branding and Brand Identity has been glossed over. I've been working with brand identity for a couple of years now, and under the Rym and Scott Copyright Act, there is no place for it. That is not a realistic scenario.
There was no question that these gamers knew how to pirate. There is no question that it was effectively legal. Yet, when the business model changed, people paid anyway. Pirates are just underserved customers.
Think about this. You go to the movie theater. There's a movie you want to see. You are willing to pay $15 to see it. There's another movie that's not looking so good. You aren't willing to buy that ticket. But what if that ticket were free? Unless the movie is really bad, odds are you're going to be getting a double feature.
That's what's happening with piracy. Piracy is not causing anyone to lose money. It's merely causing more people to get enjoyment. Look at World of Goo. No DRM, 90% piracy rate. Seems bad, right? No, it's not bad. In fact, it's great. Let's pretend that World of Goo were impossible to pirate. Would the game have sold more copies? I predict that it would not. Those 10% of people who bought it would still buy it. Those 90% of players who pirated would not have bought it. They also would not have played it. I also think that in the specific case of World of Goo, they made a big mistake in trying to sell their game for $20. It's a good game, but it's so small, it's not worth $20. Natural Selection 2 is selling for $20. If World of Goo were only $1, I think they would have sold more than 20 times as many copies, and made more money.
Bad business and risk-averse business is no excuse for maintaining the harmful copyright regime.