

Misinterpreting Copyright - tjr
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html

======
flipbrad
I do take slight issue with articles on copyright theory that go back into the
history of copyright but make little or no note of the atoms to bits
transition. It's possible, of course, that the author doesn't feel that
anything has changed and that he's preaching fundamentals. But when one looks
at how easily an author's work, in digital form, can proliferate beyond the
remotest semblance of control, through social networks that have absolutely no
semblance to the small-world form they used to have - lending a book to my
physical neighbour, vs. upping an mp3 to an international, ananymous
filesharing community. The copy you lend never comes back, and it's easier
than ever before to record - you're not manually copying (or even
photocopying) the book or sheet music

Frankly the way media is handled, produced, distributed, consumed is totally
different. There's no question that old systems that used to regulate that
flow are totally inappropriate. But this is still far too new for anyone to
legitimately claim to know what the solution is. The scientist in me calls for
some experimentation.

Nobody in the debate denies the existence of some sort of equilibrium between
protection of an author's interests and levels/quality of production (this is
different to the balance which Stallman firmly denies the
conceptualvalidity/constitutionality of). Let's tweak and test protective
measures and see where the new equilibrium falls. It may be that there's a
vast amount of elasticity in this new world and that the creator segment can
tolerate vast reductions in the protections society offers them and their
publishers. Or we might see them scale back creation immensely.

I go so far as to propose two possible ways to perceive the piracy 'pandemic'
which the creative segment has been subject to for the past few decades.

The first is as society's response to the shifted equilibrium - the release of
tensions built up by wildly inappropriate and restrictive copyright practices
that have taken away too much of people's freedom;It might thus be a sign that
copyright practices have to be relaxed for equilibrium to be restored.

The second is that it could be viewed by policymakers as precisely the sort of
experiment that I ealier advocated we try. What happens when we weaken the
copyright protections surrounding the output of publishers - does society
suffer? This is precisely what has happened (without any relaxation from the
lawmakers). Does it perhaps point to a sustainable future with reduced
copyright protection?

I realise that experimentating in law is difficult - law is a signal as much
as a framework and tweaking/screwing with it on a regular basis will in itself
be a destabilising influence to a system that we'd like to see come to a new,
stable equilibrium so that we can observe the effect. Ideally we'd use
different parameters in parallel universes; an approximate might be different
countries with different systems but the globalisation of distribution
networks means that these are no longer isolated systems, so that's out of the
window too. The experiment has to be conducted worldwide, simultaneously; WIPO
perhaps needs more power to override sovereignty.

So what about different parameters for different media forms, as Stallman
suggests (though perhaps not with the same intent as mine - I want to do it
for experimentation, he suggests it might be necessary to tailor protection
parameters for different media forms - as if a media form has an inherent
level of protection demand).

------
prospero
Stallman says that the inherent tension in copyrights is between the consumer
and publisher, and that the consumer clearly takes precedence. You could just
as easily, however, say it's a tension between the short and long-term
benefits for the consumer; on the one hand, copyright weakens the rights of
the consumer, but on the other hand it guarantees they will continue to have
quality media to consume.

I don't claim to know where the balance lies between these two considerations,
but I do know that there has to be a balance, even if we are solely concerned
for the consumer's well-being.

~~~
ggchappell
> Stallman says that the inherent tension in copyrights is between the
> consumer and publisher, ....

Actually, I don't think he said that at all. He said that, in passing laws
related to copyright, the government is, ideally, acting entirely to maximize
the benefit to the public. He says that copyright exists in order to encourage
authors to produce more works, because that should benefit the public.

> I don't claim to know where the balance lies between these two
> considerations, but I do know that there has to be a balance, ....

Stallman doesn't agree with you. He specifically states that the idea that
copyright should balance the rights of various parties, is a bad one. Read the
section titled, The first error: "striking a balance". It ends: "Since the
idea of 'striking a balance' between publishers and readers denies the readers
the primacy they are entitled to, we must reject it."

~~~
prospero
You're right, I put that badly. He says that the copyright issue is _treated_
as a tension between consumer and publisher, and that this is a problem. I
don't agree with this characterization.

I think the publishers are absolutely concerned with their bottom line when
they complain about lost sales. I also think that there's enough substance to
their slippery slope argument (given time, they'll lose so many sales they'll
become insolvent) that it's wrong to dismiss it out of hand. Publishers aren't
faceless entities intent on trading our freedoms for money, any more than a
person who downloads a DVD screener is a hardened criminal. To suggest
otherwise is ridiculous, and makes it that much harder to have a real
conversation about the future of media.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
To see the difference between "for the benefit of publishers" and "for the
benefit of consumers who read what the publishers create" you just have to ask
which applies to retroactive copyright term extension.

That to me is the act of an entity that is "intent on trading our freedoms for
money".

I'd say that similar is true of any rich industry that lobbies for laws to
protect their outmoded business models. Isn't a tax on imported sugar a minor
loss in freedom that results in a major increase in money for certain groups.

------
jorgem
Should be required reading for all our representatives. Or, maybe even for all
our citizens :)

------
nazgulnarsil
good thing copyright was invented. human beings made little to no progress
before it. without the incentive to copyright no one ever invented anything.

~~~
cduan
Please keep your intellectual property straight. Creative works are
COPYRIGHTED. Useful inventions are PATENTED. Names associated with goods and
services are TRADEMARKED.

(Or perhaps there is a missing </sarcasm>? I didn't see it...)

~~~
nazgulnarsil
irrelevant, intellectual property is in the same league as dry water.

