
Why Do Copyright Monopolists Think They Can Just Take Somebody Else’s Work? - fraqed
http://torrentfreak.com/why-do-copyright-monopolists-think-they-can-just-take-somebody-elses-work-130203/
======
stch2
So what is the ideal scenario, in the author's mind, for how creative work
should be compensated? Let's say I wrote a book, and I want to get compensated
for the time I spent writing the book. In his ideal world, I would
____________ ?

My impression from the article is I would sell one copy to one person, that
person, or future recipients of a copy, would copy it for every single other
person that might want to read it, and then I would just wait and pray for
donations. Am I misinterpreting his article?

~~~
chii
What about this:

Prior to creating the work, the author solicits "sponsors" (or backers, in the
kickstarter terminology). Each sponsor would recieve equal rights as the
author. How much each sponsor pays is up to the negotiations between the
author and the sponsors.

When the negotiation/solicitation finishes, the author will be paid the agreed
amount by the sponsors. This is the entirety of the money the author will
recieve for the works, there is no royalties received from the sponsors.

The sponsors recieve the work when it is complete, or if the author doesn't
finish, then the author will be sued for contractual obligations, just like
how you today if you hadn't fulfilled your contract.

The sponors have full, but non-exclusive rights to the work. How they use
those rights is up to them.

~~~
stch2
What's the incentive to be a sponsor vs. someone who receives a copy after the
work is finished?

~~~
chii
the incentive would be because either the sponsor thinks they can sell the
work for profit (commercial motivation), or fan based motivation (they really
like the artist's work, and would pay to see it).

The work isn't _given_ away after its done - the sponsors gets to choose what
they want to do. If none of the sponsors give away the work, then it could
become quite an exclusive/unique piece of work! Or, if one sponsor decides
they'd like to share it for free on torrent, it would indeed destroy the
business model of the sponsors who might be interested in selling the work
commercially. But that's the risk they have to take.

------
ams6110
OP is arguing against the ability to sell a "license to use" as opposed to
selling ownership interest. To say that any sale _must_ transfer ownership
would pretty much render moot the whole concept of copyright and patent.

~~~
rvkennedy
The clue is in the name: the person who owns the "copyright" is the one who
has the right to copy it. This has been the case since the Licensing of the
Press Act of 1662, so we shouldn't be shocked by it.

You can't transfer ownership of the IP to the Avengers Movie, because only one
person or entity at a time can own it. That's why for example, we license
software as developers, instead of selling it to the end user.

~~~
taproot
If transfer of ownership never takes place, then why do they keep trying to
call it theft?

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

~~~
utilitron
You are thinking of larceny. If you had an idea for a product and told me
about it, and I then took that idea and used it. That would still be theft. It
wasn't MY idea. Theft can exist as a metaphysical object.

The theft in question is production/distribution rights.

