Philosophical Quandry: Piracy

[geoschmo]

Erax, exaplin to me how you expect a game such as SE4 could ever survive under such a system? What type of "service" would we be talking about here? Aaron gives away the game and sells patches? You honestly think something like that would work?

And how could authors of books and musicians make a living? What sort of "service" do I need for my Dan Fogelburg CD's or my Asimov books?

And I am sorry but Pvk's content tax idea is so unrealisitc and flawed I am not even sure how to effectivly comment on it. I didn't think he was actually suggesting it as a realistic possibility but as an extreme point for comparison.

Administrativly it would be a nightmare. Who would determine what is worthy of compensation. The government? I am not one of these people who thinks games like Grand Theft Auto should be censored or Banned, but I will be damned if I think my tax dollars should go to support it. The whole idea is so counter to the idea of a free market capitalist system I can't even find anything in it I like.

Geoschmo

[ July 16, 2003, 15:22: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Baron Munchausen]

Geo,

You've almost got it. Copyright would work if the original 'public contract' were restored. The deal was that the original creator/compiler of the information got to control it for a limited time. Then it was public property. Corporate suits are trying to turn this into feudalism where we pay them forever. The right to control commercial exploitation of information has been mutated into 'financial damage' from losing 'potential' income and then mutated again into an imagined 'right' to the income that they think they should be getting. Feudalism didn't work with 'real' property, it sure isn't gonna work with 'intellectual' property. Those peasants went right ahead and poached game from the 'King's Land' when they were starving. Even the threat of mutilation (amputation of hands like the current wave of radicals in Islamic countries advocate for stealing) or outright death did not prevent them. Trying to make us all serfs on the corporate info-plantation is also doomed to failure and people instinctively recognize the unfairness of it. Since the current 'law' is completely contrary to the facts of life they ignore it. Just like the peasants who ignored the law that demanded they starve rather than go get the food they knew was there.

[ July 16, 2003, 15:38: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[rdouglass]

Originally posted by deccan:
.........Really? References please? I don't mean to imply that you're lying, simply that you might be mistaken.....

http://global.bsa.org/usa/press/news...-17.1667.phtml

[geoschmo]

Ok Baron. (Hey, it's ironic your nick considering your vehment opposition to the practice of feudalism. )

So basically instead of coming up with wacked out methods of compensaiton, or reinventing our whole economic system, and in the process causing more serious problems then we are fixing, the solution is simple.

Eliminate the practice of selling the actual copyright of any material. This includes any sort of backdoor methods such as performance contracts or the like. The current system where the corporations act as owner and distributor of the product must cease. The Author of the material must own the rights to the product and the corporations will be their employees contracted for the purpose of marketing and distribution, instead of the artist being the employee (slave really) of the corporation.

Limit the length of the copyright of any sort of information to something more reasonable and realistic. This would vary depending on the type of material. Longer for books, shorter for software, music and movies somewhere in the middle.

During the term of the copyright the artist would control the distribution and sale of the material and receive whatever compensation for it that can be determined through the natural market process of supply and demand. They would likely need to contract with various distributors or marketers, all of whom should receive compensation for their services from the author, but the author/artist would retain the copyrights to it.

Any aunathorized duplication of the material during the copyright period would have stiff penalties. Of course if the author/artist decides to do so he can waive some or all of those penalties, but he shuld retain the right to have them enforced as strictly as they wish, including financial and possible criminal proceedings, depending on the type and severity of the incident. This would NOT be limited to copies made and distributed for profit but extend also to copies made to avoid payment for the material, unless the author decides to allow such copies to be made.

Once the copyright period ends the material becomes public domain and can be freely copied and distributed by anyone. At that point anyone that can succesfully market the product in such a way that there is a demand for it will be entitled to the compensation with no requirement to pay the orignal author.

I see two problems with this idea.

One, what happens on the death of the author? Does the product become public domain or can the copyright be transfered to his heirs until the term expires?

Secondly, what about an author who writes a book and then wants to use the same characters in a later book? Does the copyright on those characters run from the Last book in the series or the first? Can any joe blow go off and start writing Honor Harrington books once the term expires on the original book, even thogh the author is still producing novels with her in it?

Geoschmo

[ July 16, 2003, 16:10: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Suicide Junkie]

Does the copyright on those characters run from the Last book in the series or the first? Can any joe blow go off and start writing Honor Harrington books once the term expires on the original book, even thogh the author is still producing novels with her in it?

Characters aren't copyrighted, the books/movie/etc are. Characters become trademarks, like the Energizer Bunny and Mickey Mouse, instead.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Secondly, what about an author who writes a book and then wants to use the same characters in a later book? Does the copyright on those characters run from the Last book in the series or the first? Can any joe blow go off and start writing Honor Harrington books once the term expires on the original book, even thogh the author is still producing novels with her in it?

Actually, the more I think about this, the less I think it's a problem. So someone else writes a book with your character in it. That can be a good thing for you actually because it can generate interest in your original works which you can still be distributing.

Also, you could allow corporations to "buy out" an authors copyright so that they could distibute the product freely themselves, but doing so should not transfer the copyright to them. It should transfer the work into the public domain early, so that in effect anyone would be free to market and distribute it. This could make sense as a business model considering the limited lifespan of most of these types of things. The author could get a big check at once instead of waiting for royalties over the term of the copyright and no hassles with inforcing the copyright. The corporation gets a head start on production and distribution over any competitiors, and should have the advantage in the market as theirs would be the "official Version". But they would still have to produce a quality product as they would be subject to market competition.

Geoschmo

[ July 16, 2003, 16:20: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
Characters aren't copyrighted, the books/movie/etc are. Characters become trademarks, like the Energizer Bunny and Mickey Mouse, instead.

Ok, so how is that handled then? Do trademarks have a longer lifespan then copyrights? I don't really know anything about it.

Geoschmo