Re: [GD-General] Pro-IP bill passed the house: User-created conte nt providers, beware!

[Tom H. <to...@ve...>]

I guess this is all just so absurd that I'm having difficulties coming  
up with the will to debate it. It's like trying to explain why  
calculus is important to someone who wants to get rid of algebra (and  
hence all higher math) because they don't like word problems. I'm sure  
such a concept would appeal to high school students everywhere because  
it would make their lives easier in the short term, but in the long  
term all of society would suffer from such actions.

Fundamentally, people need to be able to create original works and  
profit from those works so they can reap the rewards of the effort,  
which allows them to earn a living and continue to provide society  
with the benefit of future works. Society at large also must be able  
to use those works that they've purchased fairly. The trick is making  
sure that both sides get proper value based on the price they pay. If  
it is skewed too heavily in one direction or the other, it creates a  
pressure point in the market which instigates change. The RIAA fought  
that change tooth and nail instead of embracing it, and they're  
feeling the pain as a direct result.

The solution isn't to throw out all laws that govern these things, but  
to find laws that fit properly and ensure both short term and long  
term health of the affected markets. If you want to put together a  
petition to strike down bills that allow ridiculous abuse of due- 
process, let me know and I'll be happy to sign it. If you want to work  
on patent and copyright reform that is more representative of the  
world we have today, show me where to sign up. If you want to promote  
dumping all the protections and the ability to penalize people who  
violate those protections, then I have to think that not only have you  
lost all touch with reality, but you'll do more damage than good to  
those that want to make effective changes.

Tom

On May 27, 2008, at 12:28 PM, Crosbie Fitch wrote:

>> From: Tom Hubina
>> To be clear - no copyright or ownership would mean that I could take
>> all of the various GPL code on the net, integrate it into my
>> products,
>
> Yes, and this is good. Anyone should be able to build upon published  
> works.
>
>> call it my own,
>
> This would be plagiarism, misrepresentation, misattribution, fraud, a
> violation of the respective authors' moral rights to be recognised  
> as the
> authors of their works, etc.
>
> Copyright does not protect attribution.
>
>> charge for it,
>
> Of course.
>
>> and have it be totally closed source.
>
> If you wished, but then without copyright there's no need to  
> persuade people
> to provide the source code when they sell their software. Given  
> binaries
> cost nothing to make or copy, there would be no market for binaries.  
> You'd
> only get paid for selling source code - since no-one with their head  
> screwed
> on would pay for software to be developed if the source code  
> representing
> the work they'd paid for wasn't delivered to them. Inevitably, the  
> binary
> would serve as a free demo for the software.
>
>> Without copyright, someone using one of your sites could lift the
>> images from the web site, use it, resell it, whatever without
>> any fear
>> and without paying the artist who created the work (not even the
>> initial purchase).
>
> Yes, of course. Given the images have been released to the public, the
> public are free to share and build upon public culture.
>
> Without copyright, artists would obviously be careful to ensure  
> they'd been
> adequately compensated for their work prior to releasing it.
>
>> Without ownership of the images / IP / whatever the items
>> cease to be property.
>
> Yes. However, copyright is not about ownership but about reproduction
> privileges. Intellectual property doesn't cease without copyright,  
> it just
> means the copyright holder no longer has the privilege of preventing  
> the
> owners of copies from making further copies or derivatives.
>
> Intellectual work still remains property, otherwise you can't sell it.
>
>> As such, theft is meaningless and no longer a crime.
>
> Not at all. Intellectual works are highly valuable and to be paid  
> for, and
> any theft punished with appropriate restitution. Copyright is about  
> having a
> monopoly and prosecuting infringers, not about ownership of  
> intellectual
> works and prosecuting their theft.
>
>> If someone steals your images / art off your computer they might be
>> charged for the act of hacking your system, but they would be
>> able to
>> do whatever they wanted with the digital assets that they've stolen.
>> If they then take those assets, and put them up on the internet for
>> everyone to use, there would be _nothing_ anyone could do about it.
>> The original artist would get ZERO compensation.
>
> I quite agree. But again, copyright is not about securing IP against  
> theft,
> but about preventing people from making copies of the IP they've  
> purchased.
>
>> That is just a trite example ... imagine when big corporations are
>> suddenly given unfettered access to anything and everything they can
>> get their hands on. The amount of damage that some individuals with
>> file sharing or whatever can do is miniscule when compared to the
>> amount of damage that corporations could do. Imagine the recording
>> industry being able to take the work of smaller artists, lifted
>> directly from their web site, package it, market it, and sell it to
>> the masses without ever paying the original artist anything.
>
> If you are classifying the restoration of liberty and an emancipated  
> public
> as damage, then this is a strange way of looking at things.
>
> As for corporations exploiting smaller artists without giving them  
> fair
> compensation, many would say this is the situation with copyright. The
> recent US Orphan Works act is even fairly blatant in effectively  
> allowing
> corporations to ignore the copyrights of 'smaller artists'.
>
>> The more
>> exploitative they are, the more profitable they will be. Of course
>> this kind of activity is ultimately self destructive, but it can turn
>> a quick profit with minimal investment so it would be done massively
>> until everything has been sucked dry.
>
> So without the monopolies that copyright provides them, you feel
> corporations would suddenly make colossal profits?
>
> If that was the case, I suspect copyright would have been abolished  
> already,
> instead of the corporations' lobbying for the introduction of ever  
> more
> draconian reinforcement.
>
>> Without a system of checks and balances and a reasonable legal
>> response to people who abuse others you end up with absolute chaos.
>> When there's chaos, no one makes money. If no one makes money
>> (companies or otherwise), then they can't feed themselves by
>> performing that activity and they have to get a job elsewhere.
>> Everyone either turns cannibal, gets out of the game
>> entirely, or it's relegated to hobby only style work.
>
> I agree, but I wouldn't put it quite so dramatically.
>
>> Innovation and creativity would all but stop and the digital age and
>> all future progress would stall.
>
> Because copyright became unviable and was abolished, or because  
> there was no
> system of checks and balances?
>
>> I'm not suggesting that things like GPL or even what you're doing  
>> with
>> your sites are going to be the downfall of everything. They can only
>> exist because they have the protections that copyright and other IP
>> laws provide them, and as long as those laws exist the "Free" license
>> folks can continue to co-exist with the closed source systems.
>
> Given that the GPL provides a means of restoring the freedoms that  
> copyright
> and patent removes from free software developers, without copyright  
> and
> patent there is no need for the GPL.
>
> It would be strange if in order to allow people the freedom to copy we
> needed a law that suspended that freedom.
>
>> I'm also not suggesting that Copyright, Patents, etc aren't massively
>> flawed ... they are ... but throwing them out entirely instead of
>> working to fix the problems is asinine.
>
> I'm suggesting that their ineffectiveness will soon become so  
> obvious, that
> the needless prosecutions that continue in the name of their  
> enforcement
> should be stopped - consequently demonstrating the case for abolition.
>
> However, if you think copyright and patent remain eminently  
> functional and
> are the keys to your continued success, I'm not going to try and  
> change your
> mind.
>
> I'm talking to those who are beginning to notice that 'something is  
> rotten
> in the state of Denmark', and are wondering if anyone's been working  
> on
> solutions...
>
>> They exist for a very good
>> reason, they're just not keeping pace with the massive
>> changes in the way things are created, used, and distributed.
>
> They exist because of things that happened 300 years ago with a
> communications infrastructure far more easily subject to the crown's
> control. Certain state and commercial interests found good reasons for
> copyright, but even then they weren't good reasons for the public, and
> they're certainly not very good reasons today.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> _______________________________________________
> Gamedevlists-general mailing list
> Gam...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-general
> Archives:
> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=557