dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
12
share rss forum feed

Androidian

join:2012-12-14
Purcellville, VA
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to Joey1973

Re: I have a better idea.

said by Joey1973 :

Since they've abused it so badly, I say that we--the people--should abolish 'copyright' entirely. After all, it's not like these people really "created" anything--every author of something was raised, educated, trained, and inspired by others; everything they've ever done is attributable to someone else.

Oh good God... Really? Isn't this the same crap that Obama spouted about business owners? "You didn't do it on your own, and shouldn't be able to take credit for it."

How about we just take a reasonable approach instead? Copyright on music, movies, and software lasts for 20 years from the date of creation. After that the owners of the works may still control distribution and reverse engineering, but there are no financial penalties associated with ignoring their wishes. And there are never any criminal penalties associated with copyright infringement, unless it is associated with other criminal enterprises (counterfeiting, etc.).

Reverse engineering of works would be allowed for educational and personal use purposes, but not for business (aka "for profit") purposes.

Penalties are determined by circumstances, including believed intent, and also actual damages. A person downloading a song would be forced to buy that song at a maximum of three times current market value. (Example: $0.99 per song x 3 = $2.97 per song.) A business who violates copyright in the same manner would face similar, but more substantial, fines that factor in any profit they made from their infringement in damages. (Example: A business is found to have distributed 1,000 copies of Batman without permission, violating copyright, for a profit of $15,000. The copyright holder would have the right to ask for treble damages for the original purchase price of the movie plus treble damages using the profit made from the violation as a base. In this event it would be $45,060, if the movie sold in the stores for $20.)


Joey1973

@verizon.net

Sorry, but copyright law left "reasonable" behind quite some time ago.


Androidian

join:2012-12-14
Purcellville, VA
Reviews:
·Comcast

So you're in favor of new development grinding to a halt? Why would companies invest thousands or millions of dollars to develop software if it could not be copyrighted and allow them to profit from it exclusively for a period of time?

Business isn't altruistic, and as an investor in businesses whose future retirement portfolio depends upon their strong growth, I wouldn't encourage them to become so.

The same disincentive to create exists by getting rid of copyright laws for music and movies. Why should someone spend time and/or effort in developing a song, story, or movie if it becomes nearly impossible for them to profit from it? What value is there in owning something if one cannot sell it to make a profit, and control distribution of it? These are the very issues that copyright law sought to handle when it was created; simply because organizations like the RIAA and MPAA have distorted it does not mean that such law is worthless - just that it needs to be seriously reformed.


CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1

said by Androidian:

So you're in favor of new development grinding to a halt? Why would companies invest thousands or millions of dollars to develop software if it could not be copyrighted and allow them to profit from it exclusively for a period of time?

Not sure if you are aware of this or not but there is a vast amount of open source software that flies in the face of this comment.

said by Androidian:

The same disincentive to create exists by getting rid of copyright laws for music and movies. Why should someone spend time and/or effort in developing a song, story, or movie if it becomes nearly impossible for them to profit from it? What value is there in owning something if one cannot sell it to make a profit, and control distribution of it? These are the very issues that copyright law sought to handle when it was created; simply because organizations like the RIAA and MPAA have distorted it does not mean that such law is worthless - just that it needs to be seriously reformed.

Similar argument here... music and books (although not movies) developed and existed fine before copyright and would continue if it were eliminated completely. People do these things as an artistic expression more than because they want to get rich. For every person that doesn't push themselves to practice and get better because they couldn't make a living at it, I am sure there is another person who made great music that was turned away because their music was not deemed 'economically viable'. If Metallica stops making music because they can't fuel their jet anymore, I say good riddance... someone else will fill their shoes. That being said, I would not advocate a complete removal of copyright law, I would reform it to be more like patent law. If someone wants to make money from your creation, you have a say in if & how that happens. Personal use should be free.


cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7

said by CXM_Splicer:

Not sure if you are aware of this or not but there is a vast amount of open source software that flies in the face of this comment.

And ironically, with the exception of source code in the public domain, it's copyright law that allows open source software to flourish. Without copyright law, open source software would not exist.

said by CXM_Splicer:

Similar argument here... music and books (although not movies) developed and existed fine before copyright and would continue if it were eliminated completely.

Please compare the all the advances that came about prior to the invention of the printing press (which ultimately gave rise to one form or another of copyright) and those made after. Then, with a straight face, tell us that again that things would be fine if copyright were eliminated completely.

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1

What do you mean by 'flourish'? Do you mean to say that it is a multi-billion dollar business like proprietary code protected from reverse engineering from the DCMA? In the post I was replying to, it was implied that no one would write software anymore without that financial incentive. I also question that open source would not exist without copyright. I do agree that it exists and is protected from corporate misuse under our current copyright law but if that law was eliminated, the very corporations it is being protected from would have no financial incentive to use it.

Surely you don't mean to imply that entertainment would still be in the dark ages were it not for copyright law. I don't claim for a second that the landscape would be identical to what we have today (and many would argue that that would be a good thing) but to claim it wouldn't exist at all is ridiculous. I suppose all manufacturers of musical instruments would go out of business since the world would stop buying them? People being unable to make a living producing art renders the entire activity pointless?



cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7

said by CXM_Splicer:

What do you mean by 'flourish'? Do you mean to say that it is a multi-billion dollar business like proprietary code protected from reverse engineering from the DCMA?

Flourish: to grow well, thrive, prosper.

The original comment was basically companies wouldn't invest money into software that they couldn't copyright. You countered that open source software goes against that, in that they do invest money into software and then deliberately share it with everyone, essentially losing the exclusive rights to it as most think of copyright.

My point was that copyleft and other open source ideology could not exist without copyright to enforce it. Without copyright, there would be no way for any open source license to require such things as derivative works to have the same license, require source code to be released for redistribution, or even just have their name stay on the work.

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1

Well, your close. He was suggesting that without copyright encouraging companies to invest thousands or millions to develop software that new development would come to a halt. I simply pointed out that there is a large community of software developers working without the requirement of profit. And I do agree that the open source concept is planted firmly in copyright but I think if copyright were eliminated, open source would continue while much of the commercial development would dry up.