
Copying is an act of love. Please copy and share - init0
http://copyheart.org/
======
niggler
Copying is all fun and games until Disney comes and "copies" your art in their
products. (Previous discussion <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5513535>
) Then we get out the pitchforks.

I like the idea of sharing, but unless all the ducks are in a row someone is
bound to get hurt, and it's not clear to me if the proposed legal statement is
sound.

~~~
betterunix
We get out pitchforks when Disney violates copyrights because Disney is at the
forefront of the copyright expansion effort. The fact that Disney wants us to
retool our computers and the Internet to protect their business, while
simultaneously playing fast and loose with other people's copyrights, is what
makes people angry.

~~~
mrcharles
In theory, yes. But people will still be unreasonably angry if they say "go
ahead and copy" and then a big corporation copies it and makes millions of
dollars and you are entitled to nothing.

Honestly, I fail to see what this adds over a well chosen creative commons
attribution.

~~~
fossuser
I think most people are not in favor of commercial infringement - it's the
non-profit file sharing that most of the argument is over.

~~~
betterunix
I am not sure that is really true. I have not met many people who are angry
about bootleg DVD sales; most seem to dismiss them as being of low quality, or
just get annoyed when the person trying to sell them does not take "no" for an
answer.

------
marknutter
"People copy stuff they like. They don’t copy stuff they don’t like. The more
a work is copied, the more valuable it becomes. Value isn’t taken away by
fans, it is added by them, every time they copy."

Awesome quote from the article which I wholeheartedly agree with.

~~~
leephillips
Then maybe you can help me understand what it means. Say I write a book but
nobody purchases a copy, while thousands of unauthorized copies are downloaded
from torrent sites. How does all this "value" put food on my table?

~~~
vy8vWJlco
It puts food on your table in the same way it did for PSY (the "Gangnam Style"
guy)... People learn about you, and will pay a premium for almost anything you
touch. For example, to see you live, or to speak to you about anything, or to
buy your old house or car at substantially more than it's worth. In short, you
become a celebrity. That is the intangible value created for yourself, as a
reward for the intangible value you create for society. It works in areas like
math and research too. Publishing research will get you a better job.
Similarly, having your song copied will give you more income, even if it's
just a tip - like a waitress, or a street mime.

It's a spectrum of risk - from donations to Kickstarter - and nowhere in there
is copyright - a restriction on other people's creative work (to the detriment
of everyone, including yourself) - necessary.

~~~
leephillips
I've got to agree that if I created the most watched YouTube video of all time
that even _I_ would probably be able to turn that into some cash. But I don't
think that's a viable solution to the problem of novelists, etc., being able
to earn a living in a world of unfettered copying.

Copyright is not a restriction on anyone's "creative" work. It restricts the
right to copy things. (Not that I'm happy with all the details of current
copyright law.)

~~~
betterunix
Most novelists do not earn a living from their creative work and must work a
day job to survive. There are rare exceptions, of course, but in general
artists do not earn enough from their creative work to pay the bills. This is
as true today as it was before the Internet, before electricity, and before
copyright laws.

~~~
leephillips
This is true - most do not. But many writers, composers, photographers, etc.
do in fact earn a living from creating. I just said that I want to live in a
world where this remains possible. If we throw this out along with copyright,
we've certainly lost something.

~~~
betterunix
New technology _always_ causes us to lose something. The issue is whether or
not we gain more than we lose, and the answer is universally "yes." The
combination of PCs and the Internet has made copyrights obsolete, and with
that the concept of royalties is obsolete. Yet what we have gained from those
technology vastly outweighs what we have lost. Poor students who can barely
afford tuition can access textbooks they would otherwise be unable to afford.
The concept of "rare" or "out of print" is a thing of the past. One no longer
needs to travel long distances to find a library with a copy of some book or
photograph.

People who have no idea how to develop a photograph can send copies to their
entire family at near-zero cost. Researchers have presented systems that can
create accurate 3D maps of cities using photographs published on the Internet.

I would not throw any of the above away just to preserve the ability of a tiny
minority of authors, musicians, actors, etc. to live on their royalty
payments. I want to be able to read scientific papers without having to spend
hours searching bound journals at some library. Creative workers can and will
find ways to monetize their abilities in a post-copyright world, and they will
have to do so without relying on DRM and without trying to destroy the
Internet.

~~~
leephillips
I absolutely agree with you about the importance and wonders of the internet.
And you are undoubtedly right that the internet is making copyright, or at
least the traditional view of copyright, obsolete. But we have some ability to
create the future by influencing the direction of technology, law, and
cultural attitudes. And to fail to replace copyright with something else that
allows people to make a living through intellectual and creative work will be
a grave mistake. Just ditching copyright and embracing unfettered copying
while hoping that creative people will somehow figure out how to feed their
families will mean that less, much less, gets created, and we will all be
poorer for it. So far, no idea has been shown to be viable: voluntary payments
do not and will not work, because enough people will not pay; taking your show
on the road only works for able-bodied people with certain combinations of
talents, and even then only while they are young and without children - when
they need a steady income the least. We need new ideas, and new legal
frameworks. Just saying that everything should be free leaves us endlessly
recycling the creations of the past, created in the days when authors were
still getting paid.

~~~
vy8vWJlco
" _less, much less, gets created, and we will all be poorer for it_ "

I have seen no evidence of this. In fact, the Internet boom has been one of
the most empowering and prosperous times for creators (distinguished from mere
distributors) in my memory. (In fact, I don't recall nearly as much quality
music 10 years ago.) Furthermore, the alternative model you seek is simply
that of time-tested patronage, which has been the default for anything worth
doing since the beginning of history. Today we have the possibility of crowd-
funding. I have not been given any reasons to expect less art, only more.
Netflix, for example (arguably still a mere distributor), is even producing
original series for it's own subscription audience. Copyright is part of the
present economy, but Netflix would still want new content for it's channel
were it not. Subscriptions are just another form of patronage.

------
leephillips
It's great if you want to make something and put it in the public domain. But
I detect a normative undercurrent here, a suggestion that the author feels
that restrictions on copying are bad, or at least not as nice, as her love-
based approach.

I would like to live in a world where people can support themselves through
creative work. And online culture has failed to come up with a replacement for
strictly enforced copyright that doesn't involve de-facto monopolies, rampant
advertising, and spying on people through their computers. Jaron Lanier goes
into these issues in insightful depth in his book _You Are Not a Gadget_.

~~~
betterunix
"And online culture has failed to come up with a replacement for strictly
enforced copyright that doesn't involve de-facto monopolies, rampant
advertising, and spying on people through their computers"

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_One>

You do not need copyrights if you are willing to say, "Pay us for the next
installment, or else we will not make it." No spying, no advertising, no
monopolies.

~~~
leephillips
This is really interesting - I'd never heard of this. But glancing over the
page you linked to, it looks like 4 million downloads netted about $20,000 to
fund the next several episodes. So they are massively popular, but barely
covering the cost of production of an extremely low-budget series. This is
therefore a labor of love and not paying anyone's mortgage or feeding any
families. But they seem to have a lot of love.

~~~
betterunix
Sure, though it is worth pointing out that they must compete with people who
are using copyrights to their advantage. Even competing against the businesses
that benefit from copyright, Pioneer One is able to survive; I suspect that in
the absence of copyrights, Pioneer One would be more financially viable.

------
MRSallee
I want people to be able to profit from value they create, even if that value
is easily copied. I also think that copying/sharing content -- writing,
photographs, music, art, video -- has been incredibly healthy for the Internet
and really everyone on the planet.

I've seen a couple of "Donate" buttons attempt to solve monetization for
content creators that don't sell ads. I think there's room for a standard like
this, something that could be easily attached to a byline that could travel
with copied work.

If you "love" content enough to copy it, maybe you'll also copy a byline with
a built-in donation link. If the content gets copied enough, and people get
accustomed to easy and small donations just like Facebook Likes and Twitter
Retweets, then perhaps the culture of sharing content can financially displace
the monopolies imposed by copyright.

------
gioele
Lawyer perspective on non-licensing (it' dangerous):
[http://tieguy.org/blog/2013/01/27/taking-post-open-source-
se...](http://tieguy.org/blog/2013/01/27/taking-post-open-source-seriously-as-
a-statement-about-copyright-law/)

Non-lawyer perspective: <http://waxy.org/2011/12/no_copyright_intended/>

------
GHFigs
There is something humorous in making a statement against copyright predicated
on fans giving a PILE OF POO[1] about the creator's will. People already share
what they like; they just don't like most of the stuff that's given away for
free.

[1] <http://www.charbase.com/1f4a9-unicode-pile-of-poo>

~~~
mmastrac
I always love stumbling across links to that site I wrote years back. I had no
idea that it was ranking in Google for "pile of poo".

The source is available if anyone wants to improve it:

<http://github.com/mmastrac/charbase>

------
hanleybrand
A part of me likes this, and a part of me ❤s this. The rest of me wants to
hear what a lawter like Lessig (or someone with a silar amount of experience
and stake in the legalese of sharing) would say about it.

My guess is this has as much legal meaning as putting "this is in the public
domain" in a readme. (I.e. none)

------
joshaidan
I think the ethos of the copyheart as expressed in this website needs to be a
little different. Sure, don't restrict your audiences' ability to copy and
distribute your work, but when somebody sees the ♡ symbol, it should be a call
to action for the audience to ♡ the work and the artist(s) creating it. If
that involves supporting the work financially, then so be it. The audience of
a work is responsible for nurturing, caring for it, and supporting it's
production. This is what copyright tries to do it, but fails because it
focuses too much attention on controlling distribution.

------
apotheon
Use a simple license written with at least some vague grasp of the needs of
copyright law for licensing, please. Much as I respect the people associated
with Copyheart (Nina Paley, who I think created this whole Copyheart thing, is
the "artist in residence" at QuestionCopyright.org), I find the way some
people try to basically just pretend copyright doesn't exist as a way to fight
against the problems it creates somewhat naive and/or irresponsible. If you
want to make your works available freely to others in the same spirit as the
Copyheart thing, feel free to slap a Copyheart message on it, but please add a
simple, clean, copyfree license on it (such as the COIL, Open Works License,
or WTFPL) on the thing as well.

The reason to do that is not for your benefit so much as it is for the work's
benefit and that of the recipient. A vague, hand-wavy statement like the
Copyheart message can expose people who copy, share, and possibly modify your
works to legal difficulties down the road. Consider, for example, what happens
if you get hit by a bus tomorrow and a week later your heirs start sending
DMCA takedown notices to people circulating remixes or modifications of your
work, even if those remixes are respectful, adhere to the spirit of your
efforts, and give all due credit to you as the creator. Chances are very good
that any attempts to fight such takedowns would not stand up well in court if
the Copyheart message is all that you offered as "protection" for the people
spreading your work to new fans.

Please, do the responsible thing. Use a simple license that is very clear and
complete in its intent, such as the COIL, Open Works License, or WTFPL -- or
pick anything from the list of Copyfree Initiative certified licenses that
suits your fancy, I suppose: <http://copyfree.org/licenses>

------
unicornporn
Seems very similar to what Kopimi [1][2] is all about. It has been in use for
quite a while. Take a look at the footer of thepiratebay.is for instance.

[1] <http://www.kopimi.com/kopimi/> [2]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piratbyr%C3%A5n#Kopimi>

------
codex
I love the intention of this site, which is to clarify when something is
placed into the public domain, even though their carefree approach is legally
risky for anyone to depend on.

However, I've never seen cognitive dissonance on such as scale as when people
discuss copying and copyright, which makes most discussions useless. Rarely
are arguments supported by scholarly evidence or appeals to utilitarianism,
and the political statements on the above site are no exception.

Fundamentally, people like copying things, and some forms of copying are
restricted by law. So either the law is bad, or they are a bad person. Nobody
thinks they are a bad person (an pillar of ego which will never be shaken),
and people hate being lectured, so it's the law that breaks, often with the
flimsiest of excuses and fallacies ranging from the moral to the theoretical.

\- In some cases, copying is beneficial to the copyright holder (usually
through advertising, network effects, or market segmentation), ergo, all
copying must be beneficial

\- Some authors are against copyright, ergo all authors are against copyright

\- It's copying is okay if one's motives are pure (end justifies the means)

\- If something is easy to do, and preventing it hard, then it must be right
(naturalistic fallacy)

\- Copying is the natural state of the universe, so it must be right
(moralistic fallacy)

\- A copyright holder doesn't deserve protection because they're evil
("behaved in a selfish way") stupid ("doesn't understand technology") or
stubborn ("won't change business models")

\- Copyrights restrict personal freedom, which is a natural and inalienable
right of man, even though personal freedoms are always restricted at conflict
points to ensure societal harmony ("thou shall not kill")

\- Copyrights are based on property rights, but information is not property
for reason "x", ergo copyrights are invalid on a technicality. In reality,
many laws are enacted because of utilitarian value and need only require group
consensus ("always stop at a stop sign; person on right goes first.")

\- I paid money in return for "x", therefore I can do whatever I want with "x"
(refusal to honor contractual agreements and/or acknowledge exceptions to
property rights, which are ubiquitous)

\- Copying is good for society because information sharing has no marginal
cost (sophomoric application of economics)

\- Because some people create without expectation of monetary reward, all
people or corporations will still invest in creative works even when the
return on investment decreases, or is non-existent

\- Some people or corporations could, and thus all should, make money in
secondary markets (personal appearances, product endorsements) rather than by
selling copyrighted works directly

I would give my right arm for a rational discussion on this topic.

~~~
harshreality
You're missing the most obvious ones.

Empirically, copyright law is not effective. That is to say, copyright is
massively violated for non-commercial use.

Enforcing laws which are empirically not obeyed is a bad idea, regardless of
the philosophical merits of pro-copyright or anti-copyright arguments.

The most popular P2P protocols will advance to the point where enforcing
copyright law means enforcing an absurd policy: if your computer shares
copyrighted information even without your knowledge, you're guilty of
infringement. The only way to avoid it is not to participate in such advanced
P2P swarms (where nodes cache content for delivery to other nodes), since
nobody knows the copyright status of a particular hash-addressable piece of
content.

Enforcing laws in a way that bans a neutral computer technology (P2P sharing
of arbitrary content) is untenable [1], regardless of the ethical, moral, and
economic arguments surrounding copyright violation.

I see those arguments often. If you agree that those are not fallacies, I
don't understand why you think copyright discussions degenerate into
fallacies.

[1] What Colour are your bits?
<http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php>

~~~
tptacek
There are a lot of laws that aren't effective. Empirically, laws that attempt
to restrain gamesmanship among investment megabanks aren't effective. Laws
against many forms of tax evasion aren't effective. Here's one close to home:
laws against breaking into computers, stealing whole databases, and splashing
them onto Pastebin aren't effective. That could happen to any of your startups
tomorrow, and the likelihood of the law protecting you is very low.

In all of those cases, people routinely flout the law. It's not just that it's
hard to enforce the law; it's that people routinely violate it.

The ineffectiveness of laws is not a logical argument that the _goals_ of
those laws are bad. It's an argument either that the laws haven't been tuned
properly, or that our enforcement priorities need to be changed --- in the
case of copyright, probably in a direction you're not happy with.

Long story short: if you believe that this is a powerful argument against
copyright, you forfeit a pretty big chunk of any of your arguments against
Wall Street.

~~~
Zigurd
It seems like you are being intentionally obtuse: more surveillance can make
almost any law enforceable. Requiring disclosure and regulatory review of
exotic financial contracts doesn't violate individuals' privacy except in some
very artificial and theoretical terms, and the downside risk is global in
reach and magnitude.

Building the kind of surveillance that ensures individuals will observe all
terms of service they unknowingly agreed to and can bring felony charges and
large statutory damages against them reliably and efficiently does violate all
kinds of individual privacy. It also institutionalizes a privileged place for
publishers in the legal system, and brings Big Brother into our homes. None or
that can be said for financial regulation.

We don't owe banks or publishers or buggy-whip vendors the ability to continue
to do business in any particular way. We do owe people their privacy. There is
a fundamental difference here you no doubt see, but ignore.

------
6d0debc071
To stick down the idea of copying as a universal good is to oversimplify
things just as much as to insist than an author has an infinite moral right to
make completely unrestrained profit from the things they derive from society
for the rest of time.

It's an appealing notion, copying sounds fine when you phrase it as an act of
love, and within certain limits; fan works and the like; it is. However, if
you have unrestrained copying then people will copy in a predatory manner as
well. For instance, by aggregating your work and others work through a portal
so that you never see any advantage from it - or by putting your work into
something that has a much greater cultural presence and effectively taking
ownership of it.

------
leot
Google (or some other search engine) needs to write something that makes it
easy for anyone to "find the original" of some bunch of data (image, long-
enough-string, music sample, etc.). Such a tool would ideally also be able to
find derivative works.

This way attribution is trivial, and people will be much more willing to give
their works away, while others would feel better about copying and modifying
it. It would also render watermarks redundant.

Tin Eye, Google Image search, and Google's own algorithmic preference for
original content probably get you half-way there, but it's easy to imagine how
great it would be to have a full-featured "attribution discoverer" (or
whatever).

------
lucb1e
I don't have a copyright notice below my website because it's not needed in
order to have copyright on your work. However I also won't explicitly allow
people to copy all of my work. In most cases it's entirely flattering, but for
the times that it's not, I do remain legally entitled to have the content
removed (or have the design or anything else removed). Moreover, a copyright
notice affects the entire page. I bet you didn't think about comments that are
posted by users, they now fall under your copyright (or explicit share-right)
as well. Do you really want to licence user data that way?

------
lucian1900
I don't see how this is any better than Creative Commons.

------
maresca
I think we're a couple decades to a century away from public perception
allowing this.

~~~
deepvibrations
Agree, it comes down to us (humans) being able to act as one unit, and when we
can, everyone will be happy to copy each others work etc as much as possible.
Because if someone doesn't have food on the table, we will also be there to
help. I really hope we can reach this point in the next few decades! :)

