

Copyright Monopoly Enforcement Today Is A Mass Psychosis - Lightning
http://torrentfreak.com/copyright-monopoly-enforcement-today-is-a-mass-psychosis-130602/

======
bpatrianakos
This offers no helpful information. It's not even an argument really.
Comparing examples of ridiculous 200 year old laws to what's going on today
without any concrete examples aside from a half-assed list of proposals in
parenthesis is not an argument. It's preaching to the converted.

Torrentfreak is to copyright issues what Fox News is to Repiblican politics.
It just serves to start a discussion where everyone pats each other on the
back for agreeing with each other. Isn't there a list of domains that aren't
allowed to be submitted and if so why hasn't Torrentfreak been added to it
yet?

~~~
pjdorrell
It's true that Rick Falkvinge is "preaching to the converted". But his
preaching is slightly more coherent than the excesses of Fox News, and his
target audience is an intellectual audience.

I don't know what it is about Hacker News that guarantees a front page
appearance for every article written by Falkvinge, but he is obviously getting
the required votes. Perhaps many Hacker News readers are members of "the
converted". Perhaps the moderators of Hacker News are among the converted.

I would recommend against "censoring" Falkvinge. But his writings do deserve
to be carefully analysed and refuted, line by line if necessary.

I would like to start with the term "Copyright Monopoly". There is no
Copyright Monopoly. Each copyright is one monopoly, so there are many
"copyright monopolies" (and economically, those monopolies are a bad thing).
But there is no "Copyright Monopoly".

There is a recognisable "Copyright Industry", and perhaps also a "Copyright
Enforcement Industry", and there are various political lobbyists and interest
groups associated with those "industries". But not actually a single
"monopoly" in the technical economic sense of the word.

------
pjdorrell
Doctor Falkvinge has diagnosed "Mass Psychosis". I would like to present a
different "diagnosis" - the copyright wars are not a psychosis, they are the
result of tension between two distinct moral justifications.

The first moral justification is that copyright serves the public interest.
Under this justification, the ideal form of copyright law may change as
circumstances change. For example, the public might conclude that maximum
benefit is achieved by having no legal restrictions on the copying of digital
music, because the benefit of freely available music would exceed any
consequent reduction in the production of new music.

The second justification is that the creators of digital content deserve to
"own" their content, even _after_ they have published it. Under this
justification, there is no reason ever to change the form of copyright, and
the issue of public benefit is irrelevant. Reducing copyright on music so that
everyone could have more music for less money would just be "stealing", that
is, changing the law would itself be an act of "theft", and therefore immoral.

I discuss this diagnosis at length in
[http://thinkinghard.com/blog/ThereAreTwoDistinctJustificatio...](http://thinkinghard.com/blog/ThereAreTwoDistinctJustificationsOfCopyright.html)
.

------
tzs
Still waiting for Falkvinge to make actual concrete suggestions as to how to
allow the unlimited unrestricted copying he advocates without making it almost
impossible for artists to afford to be artists. When asked this, his usual
response if that this is not his problem.

~~~
skylan_q
_...without making it almost impossible for artists to afford to be artists_

If we never had copyright enforcement, would we be thinking this way?

Jokes aren't copyright-able, but we still have comedians.

These copyright laws had their place in helping to alleviate a public goods
problem of getting art to people. It allowed for the development of record
labels and companies to distribute music. The distribution problem is over.
The law is obsolete. The model is dying, and so are the types of jobs that
depend on that model. We can't simply say that the model is justified because
it's already there and in place.

~~~
pandaman
What about financing problem, how are you going to finance production of
movies, games and, even, music? And, most importantly, how are you going to
compel authors to give their work into public domain? If there is not going to
be significant copyright protection you can be sure there are going to be
technical means doing the same except without a limited term. They are
actually already there due to the weakened copyright. And no, teenagers are
not going to crack DRM schemes the next day.

~~~
acabal
The way art has been financed for the centuries before copyright existed:
patronage. It seems like the modern equivalent is going to be Kickstarter et
al.

~~~
pandaman
Sure, if you can afford that. Most people, especially among the torrentfreak
audience are not going to afford even recording of an album for few K. I
definitely cannot afford few dozen million for a blockbuster movie.

And if Kickstarter had been sufficient there would not be torrentfreak at all
- people would happily enjoy their donated/free art and stayed away from the
copyrighted works, would not they?

~~~
thristian
Sites like bandcamp.com are filled with interesting music; maybe it cost a few
thousand dollars to produce, maybe it was made by some guy in his parents'
basement for a few hundred dollars and a lot of time and effort.

You're right about blockbuster movies, though—nobody will make them anymore.
Then again, nobody makes giant stone pyramids in the desert anymore, either,
and for the same reason: economic conditions changed, and it wasn't a good way
to spend money anymore.

~~~
pandaman
And youtube is filled with the videos of cats. If you are into that stuff and
don't care about blockbuster movies, commercial music etc. then you should not
have any problem with copyright. It does not prevent you from enjoying your
free art.

~~~
skylan_q
_It does not prevent you from enjoying your free art._

It prevents people from building on existing copyrighted art. Talent is
redirected to creating work that becomes copyrighted. As a result, people have
less to draw from without paying royalties, so it does effect those who don't
care for copyrighted work.

~~~
pandaman
>It prevents people from building on existing copyrighted art.

Does not prevent existing copyrighted art to be build so does not look like an
issue to me.

>Talent is redirected to creating work that becomes copyrighted.

Authors prefer to be paid for their work? Let me ask you - if you had not been
paid for whatever you do, would you continue doing that or found other, more
productive occupation? As somebody who is being paid for creating copyrighted
work I can assure you - I would not work for free, I'd do something else.

~~~
skylan_q
_Does not prevent existing copyrighted art to be build so does not look like
an issue to me._

It makes derivative work difficult or impossible.

 _Authors prefer to be paid for their work? Let me ask you - if you had not
been paid for whatever you do, would you continue doing that or found other,
more productive occupation? As somebody who is being paid for creating
copyrighted work I can assure you - I would not work for free, I'd do
something else._

I understand and agree. What I don't understand is why we need copyright
protection. For the people who are protected by it? That borders on rent-
seeking. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking>

~~~
pandaman
We need copyright protection to promote progress of science and useful arts.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause>

------
siliconc0w
We should pay for digital IP the same way we pay for any other public good.
Everyone puts a little in, maybe those with more contribute more, and then you
allow everyone to benefit from the good because it can be given to everyone at
little to no marginal cost.

Econ 101. Challenging stuff.

~~~
pjdorrell
<http://thinkinghard.com/ip/PublicGood.html> (Published digital information is
a public good: the case for voted compensation)

