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.
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.
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.
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?
The only legitimate argument I'm seeing there is point (2), and even then, all you're saying is that in absolute dollars the music industry is generating more profit -- ignoring population growth, accessibility to more music (iTunes, Amazon music), etc. -- so it's very hard to say whether the music industry profits grew despite piracy, because of piracy, or independent of piracy. I'm sorry, but that's extremely unconvincing. Given the article in the OP and this reply, I can't really see the difference between your current viewpoint and pure selfishness/FYGM.
I think we agree on a few of those points, #4 however, worries me dearly. Did you even read it?
But even if all of this were not so, even if artists were indeed suffering (which they aren’t, but parasitic middlemen are), copyright would still need to be scaled back. It is now infringing on fundamental rights, and as a European citizen, I’m not prepared to give up those citizens’ rights for a multinational corporation to boost their profit.
In the 21st century, the Internet IS speech, IS assembly, IS association and IS the press.
If a corporation can’t sustain a business without having these rights limited, then that corporation deserves to go out of business. The sooner the better.
And in regards to this:
> so it's very hard to say whether the music industry profits grew despite piracy, because of piracy, or independent of piracy.
This has been covered countless times, piracy, has a huge, and known, positive effect on sales to music and movies.
You're right, I actually agree with #4 more than my previous post will admit. But I believe the unrestricted level of piracy the OP suggests should be allowed swings the pendulum too far in the opposite direction.
Indeed, IP in general is something I personally disagree with whole heartedly and completely; however, sadly, I do understand the implications and realities we face which make such a stance unworkable.
It should be noted, the only reason people are suggesting such extremes is due to the other end pushing first and foremost. Life + 50 is an absurd amount of time to keep something locked up under copyright/patent and lengthening or strengthening such laws is going counter to everything else in an age where information [in general, media included] is being made increasingly available and accessible in much larger quantities year on year.
One would assume, with all other things considered, that lengthy IP laws would be undergoing contraction opposed to expansion. They only need to be long enough to foster innovation and creation, anything more and they become counter productive and detrimental to society at large.
That's how I interpreted it. Once you sell a single copy of something you made, there are now two equal owners of it. The new owner worked really hard to make that copy, so it's fair.
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.
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.
14 comments
[ 0.19 ms ] story [ 38.6 ms ] threadYou 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.
Sorry, couldn't help myself.
The theft in question is production/distribution rights.
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?
http://falkvinge.net/2011/01/31/how-shall-the-artists-get-pa...
Cheers, Rick
3. "They'll figure it out"
4. "Not my problem"
5. "They'll figure it out"
The only legitimate argument I'm seeing there is point (2), and even then, all you're saying is that in absolute dollars the music industry is generating more profit -- ignoring population growth, accessibility to more music (iTunes, Amazon music), etc. -- so it's very hard to say whether the music industry profits grew despite piracy, because of piracy, or independent of piracy. I'm sorry, but that's extremely unconvincing. Given the article in the OP and this reply, I can't really see the difference between your current viewpoint and pure selfishness/FYGM.
> so it's very hard to say whether the music industry profits grew despite piracy, because of piracy, or independent of piracy.
This has been covered countless times, piracy, has a huge, and known, positive effect on sales to music and movies.
http://torrentfreak.com/why-most-artists-profit-from-piracy/ http://torrentfreak.com/file-sharers-buy-more-movies-121018/ http://torrentfreak.com/file-sharers-buy-30-more-music-than-...
In fact, some studios have been accused of leaking their albums early over P2P to drum up interest. (good luck proving it) http://www.scribd.com/doc/93891327/Hammond-File-Sharing-Leak
Further to that, try to keep in mind that most of an artists revenue does not come from music sales. http://torrentfreak.com/music-sales-are-just-6-of-average-mu...
It should be noted, the only reason people are suggesting such extremes is due to the other end pushing first and foremost. Life + 50 is an absurd amount of time to keep something locked up under copyright/patent and lengthening or strengthening such laws is going counter to everything else in an age where information [in general, media included] is being made increasingly available and accessible in much larger quantities year on year.
One would assume, with all other things considered, that lengthy IP laws would be undergoing contraction opposed to expansion. They only need to be long enough to foster innovation and creation, anything more and they become counter productive and detrimental to society at large.
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.
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.