I mean sure, if you want to make a reductio ad absurdum argument.
What? A shotgun OK with you? A pistol?
What I was pointing out is exactly how absurd bringing up the constitution is in regards to copyright / gun control / etc. Not only because the more relevant and finer points of the law are always written down elsewhere, but also because these are topics that shouldn't even be in your constitution anymore!
Seriously? In Europe, if your constitution remains unrevised for more than ten years the other countries start looking at you funnily. Your last amendment was 17 years ago about frigging payraises! The one before that is 38 years old.
Seriously? In Europe, if your constitution remains unrevised for more than ten years the other countries start looking at you funnily. Your last amendment was 17 years agoabout frigging payraises! The one before that is 38 years old.
Now you're just making an argumentum ad novitatem fallacy.
Now you're just making an argumentum ad novitatem fallacy.
:-) Yes, I like my constitution the same way I like my milk! Fresh and up to date with the latest international treaties on human rights. Oh, I'm sorry, that is an appeal to emotion.
No, I am actually only stating that your constitution is old and decrepit, and not nearly as important in the governance of everyday affairs as some may make it out to be.
Now you're just making an argumentum ad novitatem fallacy.
:-) Yes, I like my constitution the same way I like my milk! Fresh and up to date with the latest international treaties onhuman rights. Oh, I'm sorry, that is an appeal to emotion.
No, I am actually only stating that your constitution is old and decrepit, and not nearly as important in the governance of everyday affairs as some may make it out to be.
I agree with you that our constitution is old and decrepit, and I would personally modify it. However, that is an issue for another time.
The point is that on this particular issue, of copyright, I agree with the constitution. Or at least, I agree with my interpretation of the constitution. The progress of the useful arts and sciences is more important than someone's ability to make a buck. If changing the intellectual property laws to give less copyright and patent protection happens to have a side effect of emptying the wallets of creators, that's just tough shit.
Of course, I also don't believe that changing the law in the way I would change it would empty those wallets. Some will be lightened a great deal. Some will be lightened a little. Yet, many empty ones will begin to fill. A lot of people in this thread seem to be equating making less money with making no money. They're only thinking about indy creators losing money from no copyright. They're not thinking about all the people who undeservedly make way too much money from copyright. People are still making money from selling Elvis' music even though Elvis is dead. I don't care what the law is, there's no way that is right, and there is no way that promotes progress of useful art or science.
I will be the first to admit that without strict copyright and such, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for artists to become uber rich and famous. You're not going to see another Beatles. It's probably not going to happen ever again. So in that respect, yes they will make less money. Yet, I think what you will also see is many artists who were starving under copyright begin to make enough to pay the bills. With our kind of copyright you'll see a lot less Britney Spears and a lot more Jonathan Coulton. How can you not want to live in a world like that?
Also, FYI, Jonathan Coulton used to be a coder. Now he's a full time musician. He makes enough money to live in a very fancy and expensive neighborhood in Brooklyn, right near his friend John Hodgman. His music is all Creative Commons. In fact, I donated to the Creative Commons, and they send me a USB stick. That USB stick contained Coulton's greatest hits, but it also contained something else. It contained each and every individual separate track for each and every one of those songs, to make remixing easier. That's not something you would get from a record industry ever.
Yet, Jonathan Coulton can afford to live in Park Slope. If one person can do it, then everyone else can do it too.
How can you not want to live in a world like that?
Yeah man, I think it's fair to say we would all enjoy a world like this, and I think we've come a long way in finding a middle ground that we can all appreciate: a much shorter copyright span (I've been saying 10 years) which will encourage entrance into public domain and motivate artists to produce new work, yet understanding that artists wish to retain the right to that period of limited monopoly and wish to retain their moral rights indefinitely. Any objections to this summation so far?
Yeah man, I think it's fair to say we would all enjoy a world like this, and I think we've come a long way in finding a middle ground that we can all appreciate: amuchshorter copyright span (I've been saying 10 years) which will encourage entrance into public domain and motivate artists to produce new work, yet understanding that artists wish to retain the right to that period of limited monopoly and wish to retain theirmoral rightsindefinitely. Any objections to this summation so far?
As far as moral rights go, I think we agree as far as attribution, and the right to publish anonymously. I don't think we agree on the right to integrity. People should be free to alter, distort, or "mutilate" your work (as the Wikipedia article puts it), but only so long as they do not infringe upon any other law. If someone wants to do a Weird Al to your music, you should not be able to say no. Although, if it is still during the monopoly period, they would have to pay you a royalty if they were engaging in a commercial use. Though, if during the Weird Al-ification of your work they do something else inappropriate, such as misuse your trademarks, improperly attribute you, etc. Then you should still have grounds to go after them, regardless of whether or not their use was commercial.
Also, I don't believe that you are in agreement that all non-commercial uses should be fair uses, as long as they attribute properly. If someone makes copies of your album and gives it to all their friends, or even shares it on Pirate Bay, that's ok in my book as long as it is non-commercial distribution. If they are selling copies on the street, then that would not be allowed. It would also not be allowed for someone to take your album, replace all the ID3 tags with the name of their own band, then pretend as if they created it, even if they are engaging non-commercially. If someone wanted to make an anime music video with your song, and put it on Youtube, again with proper attribution, then that would be fair use.
"mutilate" your work (as the Wikipedia article puts it)
Well, technically it's the Berne Convention's phrasing, but your point is made. It's worth noting that America actually opted out of that part of Berne, deferring instead to slander and libel laws already in place. To continue: it would appear that this falls squarely into the "remix" category of artistic development. Do you see brand and identity development as being unimportant, or do you believe that the remix culture actually strengthens a brand's identity?
Also, for you the period of limited monopoly extends only to businesses using your work commercially for a limited period of time. I guess my problem is: since there is no impetus or obligation to purchase a piece of art, doesn't that mean its up to the good will of the general populous to basically donate money to you? Would that not serve to cheapen and devalue art?
Well, technically it's the Berne Convention's phrasing, but your point is made. It's worth noting that America actually opted out of that part of Berne, deferring instead to slander and libel laws already in place. To continue: it would appear that this falls squarely into the "remix" category of artistic development. Do you see brand and identity development as being unimportant, or do you believe that the remix culture actually strengthens a brand's identity?
I think that remixes of works, are completely separate from brand identity. There are plenty of remixes out there for all sorts of things, but those remixes do not modify the brand identity in any way. I mean, think about it. In Japan there are people making yaoi doujins for just about everything. Not even Miyazaki and Tezuka are sacred. Yet, this yaoi doujin does not change anyone's opinion of Miyazaki or Tezuka, it only changes their opinion of the doujin creators. Why? Because attribution is respected. It's really not a problem.
Also, for you the period of limited monopoly extends only to businesses using your work commercially for a limited period of time. I guess my problem is: since there is no impetus or obligation to purchase a piece of art, doesn't that mean its up to the good will of the general populous to basically donate money to you? Would that not serve to cheapen and devalue art?
Art is already cheapened and devalued compared to what it was, and it is getting cheaper all the time. That's just the reality of the world, and has nothing to do with copyright law. The supply of art is always increasing, and the costs associated with production and distribution are always decreasing. Also, for the first time in history, people are able to access not only all new art, but also all of the old art. Remember our discussions about how you can't compete with the past? There is already enough entertainment media in existence to entertain everyone forever. You can't use the law to artificially boost the value. It just won't work. It's as if you are an apple farmer, and all the apple trees start making twice as many apples. It's an unavoidable economic reality.
As for depending on the good will of the populace to donate money to you, you are partially correct. If you follow the existing business models of selling copies of works to consumers, then generosity will account for a portion of your revenues. However, there are some people out there who will buy your product not because they are generous, but because they want it very badly. There are plenty of people who see, read, or hear things for free, and then proceed to go and purchase those things. Sometimes it's because they are feeling charitable, but sometimes it's just because they like it so much. It's the same feeling people have when they line up at Apple stores. They aren't being charitable to Steve Jobs, they just want it that badly.
Now, if you start taking into consideration other, business models besides selling copies of works to consumers, you will find there are plenty of ways to make money. Comic creators make a shitton of money selling original art, doing sketches, doing commissions, selling merch, etc. Authors make tons of money with public speaking gigs. Musicians make money doing concerts.
Also, remember that only the non-commercial uses of your work will be fair. You will still be able to make a ton of money from people who want to use your work for commercial purposes. If someone wants to use a clip from your film in a TV commercial, you'll get paid. If someone wants to put your song in their video game, you'll get paid. If someone wants to make a movie adaptation of your book, you're still going to rake it in. Of course, if it's just a free fan film, you won't get any money directly. What you will get is love from your fans, and a whole bunch of new fans who got introduced to your work via the fan film.
I think that remixes of works, are completely separate from brand identity. There are plenty of remixes out there for all sorts of things, but those remixes do not modify the brand identity in any way. I mean, think about it. In Japan there are people making yaoi doujins for just about everything. Not even Miyazaki and Tezuka are sacred. Yet, this yaoi doujin does not change anyone's opinion of Miyazaki or Tezuka, it only changes their opinion of the doujin creators. Why? Because attribution is respected. It's really not a problem.
I was just going to bring this up. No one can blame the original work for fan-art. I know you dudes draw homage works, I draw doujins, most of our friends have been in artist alleys. I've seen it. Do you think we have a negative impact on The Batman or Deathnote? However, I was listening to Nuri's artist podcast about art-theft on DA where a kid who traced some digimon official art, and then when called on it, went on to say that he invented Digimon. (Lulz all around.) That is obnoxious. Referencing something is okay. Plagiarizing is not. Attribution is required.
That's a key point. Regarding statutory royalties, for example, what if any derivative work which was created by virtue of these royalty payments required attribution that included the statement "This work is neither authorized by nor associated with the original creator in any way, and was created through an obligatory statutory royalty payment."
Then, if a creator wished to "bless" a work, they could negotiate a higher royalty and waive this disclaimer.
I guess the big question at this point is: why force Creative Commons style licensing? If this is where content production and distribution is headed regardless what do we gain by forcing the issue on artists rather than letting the market gradually grow in this direction? Jonathan Coulton and Corey Doctorow have proven that the model is effective, why not let the market pick up and move naturally rather than turning the whole thing on its head?
(Edit continues): Guide people, don't force this. Forcing this will simply lead to artists feeling disenfranchised. By suggesting it as a viable artistic and financial model you're keeping the artist in a position of control while moving society in a positive direction. Furthermore: if the model is as economically viable as claimed, it will quickly overtake "traditional" licensing. Otherwise it fizzles out as an interesting experiment in licensing and distribution and we've all learned something.
On the topic of copyright duration, however, there's no real room for this argument. Copyright duration should be dramatically shortened, and the sooner the better.
I guess the big question at this point is: why force Creative Commons style licensing? If this is where content production and distribution is headed regardless what do we gain by forcing the issue on artists rather than letting the market gradually grow in this direction? Jonathan Coulton and Corey Doctorow have proven that the model is effective, why not let the market pick up and move naturally rather than turning the whole thing on its head?
(Edit continues): Guide people, don't force this. Forcing this will simply lead to artists feeling disenfranchised. By suggesting it as a viable artistic and financial model you're keeping the artist in a position of control while moving society in a positive direction. Furthermore: if the model is as economically viable as claimed, it will quickly overtake "traditional" licensing. Otherwise it fizzles out as an interesting experiment in licensing and distribution and we've all learned something.
The reason to force it is for the benefit of the progress of useful arts and sciences. Remember, it's not just artists making entertainment, though they are part of the equation. Copyright is also keeping scientific studies locked up in journals. It's keeping law libraries expensive and difficult to access. It's costing lots of people lots of legal fees dealing with stupidity such as the SCO debacle.
Forcing a Creative Commonsish license might upset some artists, but that's a small price to pay for the universal sigh of relief and jump for joy that everyone else will have. People will be able to take their DVDs and watch them on their iPods without worrying about the DMCA. People will be able to actually learn lots of valuable art and science without having to pay money. People will be able to release their Mickey Mouse remixes without fear of their lives being ruined. There will be an insane outpouring of creativity like which the world has not seen before. If a few artists want to deprive us of all that awesomeness just to make a few extra bucks, fuck 'em with a pointed and jagged stick in your orifice of choice.
The reason to force it is for the benefit of the progress of useful arts and sciences. Remember, it's not just artists making entertainment, though they are part of the equation. Copyright is also keeping scientific studies locked up in journals. It's keeping law libraries expensive and difficult to access.
What is preventing lawyers and scientists from publishing this material under another license? My assumption is: this monetization tactic was born out of the simple necessity for material wealth in our society. Now it's very likely that the controlling powers have gone way overboard with this, but until we tackle the basic problem of "people need money" the rest of this is kind of for show. Particularly in the sciences: I'm positive I can guess your feelings on patents; how then do scientists make money?
What is preventing lawyers and scientists from publishing this material under another license? My assumption is: this monetization tactic was born out of the simple necessity for material wealth in our society. Now it's very likely that the controlling powers have gone way overboard with this, but until we tackle the basic problem of "people need money" the rest of this is kind of for show. Particularly in the sciences: I'm positive I can guess your feelings on patents; how then do scientists make money?
Some scientists do publish under nice licenses, but most can not. Some of them have universities that own their work and dictate how things will be published. Also, in order to get your work recognized, you need it to be published in a respectable journal. We could have a whole 'nother thread about said journals.
As for scientists making money, they'll make them just as they always have. I don't think anybody here advocated the elimination of patents. Anyone? It's merely the stupid patents that need to go away. There are tons of patents on the books for things which there is obvious prior art. There are tons of patents on the books for things which can not exist, such as free energy devices. There are tons of patents on the books for obvious and/or fundamental software algorithms, i.e: Amazon One Click. There are even patents on naturally occurring things, like genes.
Worst of all, there are the patent trolls. These are companies that do nothing except send in tons of patent submissions. They also buy up all sorts of patents from other companies, if they can. They make all of their money by suing and/or collecting licensing fees from companies that actually use the patents.
Patents should be here to stay, but there needs to be an enormous amount of patent reform. Some good ideas are starting to happen, such as allowing the public to help in finding prior art. Despite that, we've still got a long way to go. We need to have some sort of standard of significance in determining what is patentable, and what is not. It's a huge mess.
Also, related to patents, is the issue of trade secrets. You see, when you patent something, you make it public. Every patent is viewable for all to see. You can search them on Google. So the world benefits from the knowledge of your invention, it's just that nobody can make money off of it without you for as long as your limited monopoly lasts. The limit on patents is actually kind of reasonable. IIRC it's 14 years in the US? Someone correct me.
Trade secrets are another thing entirely. Companies will invent things, then specifically not patent them in order to maintain trade secret protection. I am not that well informed about trade secret law, so I won't talk about it much. What I will say is that any time it ever comes up, I'm always pissed off about it.
Also, FYI, Jonathan Coulton used to be a coder. Now he's a full time musician. ... His music is all Creative Commons.
Actually, it's just the songs he wrote. Covers and other stuff that he performs are not under CC. Just in case anyone was about to go add Baby Got Back into their podcast.
I'm not disputing your point about him making a living, but most of his money comes from performances, not selling his music. It's a little harder for a visual artist to make money that way.
The point has been raised, and I think insufficiently refuted by those pro-copyright folks (for reference, I support the moral purpose of copyright and oppose the current copyright laws) that it is beyond impossible to enforce all these ridiculously punishing copyright laws, and it is obviously not deterring enough to stop people. The wise man sees an ineffective rule and adapts it to make it more effective, and the stupid man sees the same rule and thinks it's not harsh enough.
Think of it this way: you could make a law banning thinking about committing murder. The purpose is noble enough (who doesn't want less murder?), but it is impossible to enforce without infringing upon fundamental rights, and ineffective because of it. A wise legislator would reform that law to reflect this realization, rather than continuing to defend it.
Jaywalking is another good example here: most cops in decently sized places don't give two shits about jaywalkers. They simply have better things to do, and a law so ineffective and unimportant merely diverts the limited amount of time and manpower the cops have from important things, like preventing murders and whatnot, to stopping some kid from crossing the street. The law is noble enough in its intentions, but it's simply impractical and unenforceable.
Copyright laws, in this regard, are as unenforceable as jaywalking laws. Instead of wasting the time and manpower to infringe upon fundamental rights in order to enforce such an ineffective law, it should be used elsewhere. Frankly, it's up to the producer to make a product that people want, are willing to pay for, and to disseminate that product in such a way that people would rather buy it than pirate it.
Look at Steam, iTunes, and the Virtual Console. It's trivial to pirate anything that they offer, and yet each makes incredible amounts of money, regardless of that fact. The reality of the modern economy is that piracy will happen. That's a fact. Rather than wasting time and effort trying to stop it legally, content creators should find ways, like Apple, Valve, Nintendo, and so many others, to make money in this pirating economy. It's possible, and it's necessary.
Copyright owners are responsible for enforcing their own copyright. The copyright holder is the only one that can go after an infringer. Copyright is enforceable to a certain extent, and the fact that the law exists deters a heck of a lot of infringing activity. Just because one guy ignores the law doesn't mean there aren't ten more people that would have infringed if there wasn't a law but didn't. We don't really have figures that say how many potential infringements have been deterred by the current law, so how can you say it isn't deterring enough activity?
I think you need to explain what your criteria for effective enforcement are. Shoplifting is illegal, but people still do it. We don't catch all of them. From my experience as a teenager, we don't even catch most of them. Does that mean laws against it are ineffective, and that shoplifting should be made legal?
Speeding and jaywalking laws are enforced arbitrarily and capriciously...they don't even attempt to catch every lawbreaker and punish them. Jaywalking is only ever an issue if it causing some other problem, like a car accident. Cops around here routinely drive at least 5 mph over the speed limit, and you are unlikely to be pulled unless you are going more than 10 over. That is a completely different failing than the inability to catch every single person. Plus, cops don't enforce copyright. The copyright holders do; they can put as much or as little effort into policing as they want.
Cops around here routinely drive at least 5 mph over the speed limit, and you are unlikely to be pulled unless you are going more than 10 over.
The average radar gun has a 5-7 MPH margin of error (without compensating for additional user error), which means a ticket under 10 over is likely to be thrown out if it is based on a radar gun reading. If you are clocked at even 1 MPH over with a laser gun, you'll get nailed because of the highly increased accuracy. You are completely spot on about jaywalking, though.
they can put as much or as little effort into policing as they want.
With in the bounds of the law. If someone thinks I shoplifted a book, Random House can't knock down my door and search my bookshelves, saying, "We heard you may have taken something that belongs to us, and we need to be sure so we can press charges if you did." Same rules apply to music and the like: big companies have absolutely no right to sniff my datastream for "their material" if they do not have actual rock-solid evidence (read: access logs) that could get them a warrant in a court of law. And if they did get that warrant, they still have no right to search my hard drive for their material, as any piece of malware could arbitrarily access a site to get you in trouble. They'd have to have a warrant based on actual evidence to look at my datastream and try and catch me in the act.
I'm not disputing your point about him making a living, but most of his money comes from performances, not selling his music. It's a little harder for a visual artist to make money that way.
Effective enforcement is such that the normal person considers the potential consequences of a law real enough and likely enough to be enforced to not be worth doing it. Not all shoplifters are caught, but the average person knows enough not to shoplift, because you're likely to get caught, and the punishments are fairly severe, in addition to all the moral arguments. Shoplifting laws are effective because they are unambiguous, easily enforceable, and generally easy to prosecute. Copyright laws, on the other hand, are very ambiguous, hard to enforce, and a bitch to prosecute, not to mention not having enough of a deterring force to effectively enforce copyright. Jaywalking and speeding fall into generally the same category, on a less extreme basis.
I can say that copyright law isn't deterring enough activity because it's obvious piracy is still an issue. If the copyright laws were deterring enough piracy, nobody would be complaining, nobody would be debating, and piracy would not be rampant. The fact this thread has gone from zero to 170 fairly quickly is evidence to this effect.
Moreover, the solution to an ineffective law is not simply to make whatever it is legal. One must reform the law so that it becomes effective: it must be as unambiguous, enforceable, and prosecutable enough to be worth the trouble and deterrent enough to change public opinion. In this case, additionally, it must also uphold the spirit of the section in the Constitution that regards it.
This is simply talking about copyright laws, however. I've addressed what the copyright holders should be doing in my last post. Granted, it won't be easy, but producers of intellectual properties must reform themselves and their business models if they want to succeed.
I just listened to Stephen Fry's latest podcast episode, which as it turns out was a live speech on copyright. He mentioned a recent Harvard study which has found that weaker copyright has benefited society - see the working paper here. While others in this thread have already said as much, I thought this was a very significant claim, and needed more evidence to back it up than what was provided in the thread.
Comments
What I was pointing out is exactly how absurd bringing up the constitution is in regards to copyright / gun control / etc. Not only because the more relevant and finer points of the law are always written down elsewhere, but also because these are topics that shouldn't even be in your constitution anymore!
Seriously? In Europe, if your constitution remains unrevised for more than ten years the other countries start looking at you funnily. Your last amendment was 17 years ago about frigging payraises! The one before that is 38 years old.
No, I am actually only stating that your constitution is old and decrepit, and not nearly as important in the governance of everyday affairs as some may make it out to be.
The point is that on this particular issue, of copyright, I agree with the constitution. Or at least, I agree with my interpretation of the constitution. The progress of the useful arts and sciences is more important than someone's ability to make a buck. If changing the intellectual property laws to give less copyright and patent protection happens to have a side effect of emptying the wallets of creators, that's just tough shit.
Of course, I also don't believe that changing the law in the way I would change it would empty those wallets. Some will be lightened a great deal. Some will be lightened a little. Yet, many empty ones will begin to fill. A lot of people in this thread seem to be equating making less money with making no money. They're only thinking about indy creators losing money from no copyright. They're not thinking about all the people who undeservedly make way too much money from copyright. People are still making money from selling Elvis' music even though Elvis is dead. I don't care what the law is, there's no way that is right, and there is no way that promotes progress of useful art or science.
I will be the first to admit that without strict copyright and such, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for artists to become uber rich and famous. You're not going to see another Beatles. It's probably not going to happen ever again. So in that respect, yes they will make less money. Yet, I think what you will also see is many artists who were starving under copyright begin to make enough to pay the bills. With our kind of copyright you'll see a lot less Britney Spears and a lot more Jonathan Coulton. How can you not want to live in a world like that?
Yet, Jonathan Coulton can afford to live in Park Slope. If one person can do it, then everyone else can do it too.
Also, I don't believe that you are in agreement that all non-commercial uses should be fair uses, as long as they attribute properly. If someone makes copies of your album and gives it to all their friends, or even shares it on Pirate Bay, that's ok in my book as long as it is non-commercial distribution. If they are selling copies on the street, then that would not be allowed. It would also not be allowed for someone to take your album, replace all the ID3 tags with the name of their own band, then pretend as if they created it, even if they are engaging non-commercially. If someone wanted to make an anime music video with your song, and put it on Youtube, again with proper attribution, then that would be fair use.
Also, for you the period of limited monopoly extends only to businesses using your work commercially for a limited period of time. I guess my problem is: since there is no impetus or obligation to purchase a piece of art, doesn't that mean its up to the good will of the general populous to basically donate money to you? Would that not serve to cheapen and devalue art?
As for depending on the good will of the populace to donate money to you, you are partially correct. If you follow the existing business models of selling copies of works to consumers, then generosity will account for a portion of your revenues. However, there are some people out there who will buy your product not because they are generous, but because they want it very badly. There are plenty of people who see, read, or hear things for free, and then proceed to go and purchase those things. Sometimes it's because they are feeling charitable, but sometimes it's just because they like it so much. It's the same feeling people have when they line up at Apple stores. They aren't being charitable to Steve Jobs, they just want it that badly.
Now, if you start taking into consideration other, business models besides selling copies of works to consumers, you will find there are plenty of ways to make money. Comic creators make a shitton of money selling original art, doing sketches, doing commissions, selling merch, etc. Authors make tons of money with public speaking gigs. Musicians make money doing concerts.
Also, remember that only the non-commercial uses of your work will be fair. You will still be able to make a ton of money from people who want to use your work for commercial purposes. If someone wants to use a clip from your film in a TV commercial, you'll get paid. If someone wants to put your song in their video game, you'll get paid. If someone wants to make a movie adaptation of your book, you're still going to rake it in. Of course, if it's just a free fan film, you won't get any money directly. What you will get is love from your fans, and a whole bunch of new fans who got introduced to your work via the fan film.
However, I was listening to Nuri's artist podcast about art-theft on DA where a kid who traced some digimon official art, and then when called on it, went on to say that he invented Digimon. (Lulz all around.) That is obnoxious.
Referencing something is okay. Plagiarizing is not. Attribution is required.
Then, if a creator wished to "bless" a work, they could negotiate a higher royalty and waive this disclaimer.
(Edit continues): Guide people, don't force this. Forcing this will simply lead to artists feeling disenfranchised. By suggesting it as a viable artistic and financial model you're keeping the artist in a position of control while moving society in a positive direction. Furthermore: if the model is as economically viable as claimed, it will quickly overtake "traditional" licensing. Otherwise it fizzles out as an interesting experiment in licensing and distribution and we've all learned something.
On the topic of copyright duration, however, there's no real room for this argument. Copyright duration should be dramatically shortened, and the sooner the better.
Forcing a Creative Commonsish license might upset some artists, but that's a small price to pay for the universal sigh of relief and jump for joy that everyone else will have. People will be able to take their DVDs and watch them on their iPods without worrying about the DMCA. People will be able to actually learn lots of valuable art and science without having to pay money. People will be able to release their Mickey Mouse remixes without fear of their lives being ruined. There will be an insane outpouring of creativity like which the world has not seen before. If a few artists want to deprive us of all that awesomeness just to make a few extra bucks, fuck 'em with a pointed and jagged stick in your orifice of choice.
As for scientists making money, they'll make them just as they always have. I don't think anybody here advocated the elimination of patents. Anyone? It's merely the stupid patents that need to go away. There are tons of patents on the books for things which there is obvious prior art. There are tons of patents on the books for things which can not exist, such as free energy devices. There are tons of patents on the books for obvious and/or fundamental software algorithms, i.e: Amazon One Click. There are even patents on naturally occurring things, like genes.
Worst of all, there are the patent trolls. These are companies that do nothing except send in tons of patent submissions. They also buy up all sorts of patents from other companies, if they can. They make all of their money by suing and/or collecting licensing fees from companies that actually use the patents.
Patents should be here to stay, but there needs to be an enormous amount of patent reform. Some good ideas are starting to happen, such as allowing the public to help in finding prior art. Despite that, we've still got a long way to go. We need to have some sort of standard of significance in determining what is patentable, and what is not. It's a huge mess.
Also, related to patents, is the issue of trade secrets. You see, when you patent something, you make it public. Every patent is viewable for all to see. You can search them on Google. So the world benefits from the knowledge of your invention, it's just that nobody can make money off of it without you for as long as your limited monopoly lasts. The limit on patents is actually kind of reasonable. IIRC it's 14 years in the US? Someone correct me.
Trade secrets are another thing entirely. Companies will invent things, then specifically not patent them in order to maintain trade secret protection. I am not that well informed about trade secret law, so I won't talk about it much. What I will say is that any time it ever comes up, I'm always pissed off about it.
I'm not disputing your point about him making a living, but most of his money comes from performances, not selling his music. It's a little harder for a visual artist to make money that way.
Think of it this way: you could make a law banning thinking about committing murder. The purpose is noble enough (who doesn't want less murder?), but it is impossible to enforce without infringing upon fundamental rights, and ineffective because of it. A wise legislator would reform that law to reflect this realization, rather than continuing to defend it.
Jaywalking is another good example here: most cops in decently sized places don't give two shits about jaywalkers. They simply have better things to do, and a law so ineffective and unimportant merely diverts the limited amount of time and manpower the cops have from important things, like preventing murders and whatnot, to stopping some kid from crossing the street. The law is noble enough in its intentions, but it's simply impractical and unenforceable.
Copyright laws, in this regard, are as unenforceable as jaywalking laws. Instead of wasting the time and manpower to infringe upon fundamental rights in order to enforce such an ineffective law, it should be used elsewhere. Frankly, it's up to the producer to make a product that people want, are willing to pay for, and to disseminate that product in such a way that people would rather buy it than pirate it.
Look at Steam, iTunes, and the Virtual Console. It's trivial to pirate anything that they offer, and yet each makes incredible amounts of money, regardless of that fact. The reality of the modern economy is that piracy will happen. That's a fact. Rather than wasting time and effort trying to stop it legally, content creators should find ways, like Apple, Valve, Nintendo, and so many others, to make money in this pirating economy. It's possible, and it's necessary.
I think you need to explain what your criteria for effective enforcement are. Shoplifting is illegal, but people still do it. We don't catch all of them. From my experience as a teenager, we don't even catch most of them. Does that mean laws against it are ineffective, and that shoplifting should be made legal?
Speeding and jaywalking laws are enforced arbitrarily and capriciously...they don't even attempt to catch every lawbreaker and punish them. Jaywalking is only ever an issue if it causing some other problem, like a car accident. Cops around here routinely drive at least 5 mph over the speed limit, and you are unlikely to be pulled unless you are going more than 10 over. That is a completely different failing than the inability to catch every single person. Plus, cops don't enforce copyright. The copyright holders do; they can put as much or as little effort into policing as they want.
I can say that copyright law isn't deterring enough activity because it's obvious piracy is still an issue. If the copyright laws were deterring enough piracy, nobody would be complaining, nobody would be debating, and piracy would not be rampant. The fact this thread has gone from zero to 170 fairly quickly is evidence to this effect.
Moreover, the solution to an ineffective law is not simply to make whatever it is legal. One must reform the law so that it becomes effective: it must be as unambiguous, enforceable, and prosecutable enough to be worth the trouble and deterrent enough to change public opinion. In this case, additionally, it must also uphold the spirit of the section in the Constitution that regards it.
This is simply talking about copyright laws, however. I've addressed what the copyright holders should be doing in my last post. Granted, it won't be easy, but producers of intellectual properties must reform themselves and their business models if they want to succeed.