Miscellaneous > The Lounge

I love Sweden

<< < (2/3) > >>

Aloone_Jonez:

--- Quote from: piratePenguin on  6 August 2010, 09:42 ---Aloone, the almost-universally held assertion that (btw- strict) copyright is necessary to allow artists to thrive is something that I think hasn't been challenged in peoples heads (I'm referring to the majority of people) Imo there are many easily overlooked points and it turns out to be a complicated question rather than a simple one .
--- End quote ---
I agree, it isn't that simple.


--- Quote ---I haven't given a "proof" (this is not a word we should use).
--- End quote ---
The trouble is that proof it's the kind of word you need to use to get laws changed, no government is going to do anything they think will  have a high risk of damaging the economy.


--- Quote ---Will you outline the copyright reforms you think are important? What consumer rights do you mean?
--- End quote ---

The main problems with current copyright law need to be fixed.

Before you buy a piece of software you should be allowed to see the EULA before you hand over the money. Ideally I'd like to make a law that says you should be able to return software if it doesn't suit your needs, although I realise that it wouldn't be workable as many people would buy it, pirate it and return it for a refund.

Business owners should not have to pay for a licence to have the radio on in their premises: the record companies already get royalties from the radio station and shouldn't be allowed to claim them again.

Fair dealing should be enforced more rigorously, there should be a list of rights given to the consumer which should override whatever is in the EULAs and common sense should be used when applying copyright and damage cases:

[*]A hip-hop artist shouldn't have to pay someone royalties because they used a five second sample of their music.
[*] Schools and ammeter dramatics companies should be exempt for paying royalties because they used some music for a performance.
[*] if someone buys software on a device such as a hard drive or flash memory which can be easily wiped or fail, they should have the right to make a back up copy.
[*] The length of an EULA intended for a home user should be restricted to something sensible such as 1000 words - it's not reasonable for someone to have to read through several pages of legal bullshit. This will probably effect the GPL too. ;D
[/list]

I think that copyright should die with the owner, there's no point in rewarding someone's children for something one of their parents did nearly a century ago - that's what inheritance is for!

I'm also for a fixed term on copyrights which isn't tied to the life of the person who created it but to the owner. If a company pays someone to create something for them, the company owns the copyright for 50 years, regardless of whether the person dies or whatever and the company may sell the copyright but doing so won't renew it. I think 50 years is probably too long but it can be reduced in future.


--- Quote ---I do not see why copyright should go out over hundreds of years? Maybe it should be phased out slowly but I think a comparatively minuscule timescale makes sense. This isn't too important but I don't understand hundreds of years!
--- End quote ---
It's taken copyright that long to materialise so it's only logical that dismantling it should take just as long.

Sudden changes have always been detrimental to the economy, even if they do good in the long term. Think of all the businesses which depend on strong copyright laws and how much of a large proportion of the economy they occupy. Changing the law over a very long period of time would allow them to adapt or slowly decline, suddenly changing the law would trigger a gigantic collapse in the software, music and film industries which is the last thing we want.



--- Quote ---edit: I have to remark about the contents in this "There is no definitive proof that removing copyright law would not damage the economy and that lots of film, record and software companies would go out of business". It's complicated about film and software, but I trust that almost all of the record companies will be dead and buried in a free culture world. People will be finding music from friends and other means, and connecting with artists where desirable to pay money direct! I'm sure that there will be a centralized (but open) platform similar to Apple's iTunes - except including all of the worlds media - because it will all be free, and where artists can register payment details so that people can contribute to them. Probably a system similar to how Flattr works will be popular, but this is all mostly an outside point. This edit is important because we need to notice that some of these differences are critical to mine and others pov.

--- End quote ---

Of course if the record companies died, there'd still be music but it would be more like it used to be before they existed in the first place. People would still pay to see classical concerts, live bands, musical theatre and opera but we wouldn't have polished music videos or tracks. Everything would become more amateur, with less professionals and more people who make music purely for fun rather than money. A similar thing would probably happen to the film industry: no more multimillion blockbusters, just small films made by people who do it for fun, probably more like YouTube than Universal.

Again, go back to what I said before when you consider what a sudden change in the law would do: imagine the impact on Hollywood,.

piratePenguin:

--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez on  7 August 2010, 12:02 ---
--- Quote from: piratePenguin on  6 August 2010, 09:42 ---Aloone, the almost-universally held assertion that (btw- strict) copyright is necessary to allow artists to thrive is something that I think hasn't been challenged in peoples heads (I'm referring to the majority of people) Imo there are many easily overlooked points and it turns out to be a complicated question rather than a simple one .
--- End quote ---
I agree, it isn't that simple.
--- End quote ---
okay

--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---I haven't given a "proof" (this is not a word we should use).
--- End quote ---
The trouble is that proof it's the kind of word you need to use to get laws changed, no government is going to do anything they think will  have a high risk of damaging the economy.
--- End quote ---
Indeed - no government will ever change these laws because of this conversation here. But once the world starts having this conversation the technical information and studies can we worked on - I don't have any resources to work on this, I don't claim that I do. My only goal on here is to point out some under-thought points, and I will consistently make these points in such a conversation because it would be a useless conversation to listen to "without copyright we would have no art".

--- Quote ---Of course if the record companies died, there'd still be music but it would be more like it used to be before they existed in the first place. People would still pay to see classical concerts, live bands, musical theatre and opera but we wouldn't have polished music videos or tracks. Everything would become more amateur, with less professionals and more people who make music purely for fun rather than money. A similar thing would probably happen to the film industry: no more multimillion blockbusters, just small films made by people who do it for fun, probably more like YouTube than Universal.
--- End quote ---
I like that you said 'probably' in the last sentence, but we don't know that the best artists won't thrive to create the best artwork - as that will be necessary to A. get rich, famous and B, most importantly - to satisfy themselves.

The renaissance time saw some of the most impressive artwork that was ever seen - artists received money through patrons who liked their work - I am thinking about a much similar system, except the patron can be a collective.

--- Quote ---Again, go back to what I said before when you consider what a sudden change in the law would do: imagine the impact on Hollywood,.

--- End quote ---
We can iron out the implementation details later, of course it won't be a case of "everyone, I'm taking your copyright off you tomorrow" - firstly people will be on board, and creators will be given time to start getting their heads right as to how they'll "pay bills" (or make a shit load more money), and media cartels given the time to wonder can they play a part in this great new thing (most likely they can't - as from now on creators will probably deal with the public directly and collect 100% or close of what people are coughing up for them).

Is this really in line with your frame of mind: (this is how most people 'comprehend' it)
 - Lack of copyright means ticket sales are going to sink AND
 - DVD sales are going to sink AND
 - merchandise sales are going to sink AND
 - nobody is going to give them any money! AND
 - they are going to either stop creating films or they will be seriously low quality
This is exactly what needs to be challenged. As you said above:
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez on  7 August 2010, 12:02 ---
--- Quote from: piratePenguin on  6 August 2010, 09:42 ---Aloone, the almost-universally held assertion that (btw- strict) copyright is necessary to allow artists to thrive is something that I think hasn't been challenged in peoples heads (I'm referring to the majority of people) Imo there are many easily overlooked points and it turns out to be a complicated question rather than a simple one .
--- End quote ---
I agree, it isn't that simple.
--- End quote ---
But it seems like you do have it figured out?

So ya know, I'm just trying to say that in my mind this is all complicated. I don't know that Peter Jackson will/won't be able to get another budget of ~<$300m together to create a new war trilogy. Note that LOTR trilogy raked in almost three billion according to wikipedia (of course, that's with copyright) - that's enough money to last him ten trilogies. I hope that it's only people with a true passion for the (new) business who can get together money such as $300m. Btw, I also don't think that removing copyright lives and dies on the answer to this question.

Aloone_Jonez:

--- Quote from: piratePenguin on 10 August 2010, 12:27 ---The renaissance time saw some of the most impressive artwork that was ever seen - artists received money through patrons who liked their work - I am thinking about a much similar system, except the patron can be a collective.
--- End quote ---
You can't compare then with now, back then you couldn't duplicate the artwork at no cost at all which you can do today.



--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---Again, go back to what I said before when you consider what a sudden change in the law would do: imagine the impact on Hollywood,.

--- End quote ---
We can iron out the implementation details later, of course it won't be a case of "everyone, I'm taking your copyright off you tomorrow" - firstly people will be on board, and creators will be given time to start getting their heads right as to how they'll "pay bills" (or make a shit load more money), and media cartels given the time to wonder can they play a part in this great new thing (most likely they can't - as from now on creators will probably deal with the public directly and collect 100% or close of what people are coughing up for them).

Is this really in line with your frame of mind: (this is how most people 'comprehend' it)
 - Lack of copyright means ticket sales are going to sink AND
 - DVD sales are going to sink AND
 - merchandise sales are going to sink AND
 - nobody is going to give them any money! AND
 - they are going to either stop creating films or they will be seriously low quality
--- End quote ---
To an extent that's probably true but I doubt it will kill enough the film industry, just drastically reduce the amount of money coming in which enough to cause a huge recession.

Don't forget that sales of DVDs, merchandise and tickets no longer make  the creator of the film and money now because you've just got rid of copyright law:
[*]Any company can legally sell DVDs without giving and money to the creators of the film.
[*]Anyone can buy a film projector, open their theatre without paying any money to the film company
[*]Anybody can now manufacture merchandise without sharing their profits with the creator of the film.[/list]

So where's the money coming from?

Maybe people will pay to watch the films being made?

Perhaps there will be less films and more theatre?

I don't think the current model for the film industry can continue to exist without copyright.

This is why I think totally eliminating copyright altogether is a bad idea, at least as things currently are. I think that keeping copyright and the right of the film creator to have contracts with DVD companies and theatres is a good thing. I just thing that the current system of aggressively enforcing copyright and going after people for downloading is unsustainable, without censorship and restriction of civil liberties.

piratePenguin:

--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez on 10 August 2010, 14:49 ---
--- Quote from: piratePenguin on 10 August 2010, 12:27 ---The renaissance time saw some of the most impressive artwork that was ever seen - artists received money through patrons who liked their work - I am thinking about a much similar system, except the patron can be a collective.
--- End quote ---
You can't compare then with now, back then you couldn't duplicate the artwork at no cost at all which you can do today.
--- End quote ---
The point is that the artwork was done back then, and people were getting paid for it.

--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---Again, go back to what I said before when you consider what a sudden change in the law would do: imagine the impact on Hollywood,.

--- End quote ---
We can iron out the implementation details later, of course it won't be a case of "everyone, I'm taking your copyright off you tomorrow" - firstly people will be on board, and creators will be given time to start getting their heads right as to how they'll "pay bills" (or make a shit load more money), and media cartels given the time to wonder can they play a part in this great new thing (most likely they can't - as from now on creators will probably deal with the public directly and collect 100% or close of what people are coughing up for them).

Is this really in line with your frame of mind: (this is how most people 'comprehend' it)
 - Lack of copyright means ticket sales are going to sink AND
 - DVD sales are going to sink AND
 - merchandise sales are going to sink AND
 - nobody is going to give them any money! AND
 - they are going to either stop creating films or they will be seriously low quality
--- End quote ---
To an extent that's probably true but I doubt it will kill enough the film industry, just drastically reduce the amount of money coming in which enough to cause a huge recession.

Don't forget that sales of DVDs, merchandise and tickets no longer make  the creator of the film and money now because you've just got rid of copyright law:
[*]Any company can legally sell DVDs without giving and money to the creators of the film.
[*]Anyone can buy a film projector, open their theatre without paying any money to the film company
[*]Anybody can now manufacture merchandise without sharing their profits with the creator of the film.[/list]

So where's the money coming from?
--- End quote ---
Again, you're saying this will happen for sure. I agree it will happen, but it will be met with stigma I am certain, and you will not get significant numbers on board with this carry on. (people actually have a sense that people should work for what they get - and they will know that the movies etc are, by default, free)

Also, by far, more and more media consumption is happening in one location - that is our computers (and mobiles, which will be our music players and storage devices in the near future). In the future, all of our favorite bands, films, etc will be on there, and I've talked about some simple system where people can send out money to artists they enjoy. We might get people who pay 3 euro to watch a film with their girlfriend who go home and send 25 euro to the creators online. Or they might add them to their favorites so that at the end of each month 40 euro will be shared between all favorites. We might have rich movie buffs who'd love to call themselves patrons and who share 10,000 euro a month between their favorite film creators. Maybe other people will become famous for their patronage - locally or globally.

Wrt radio or tv stations, I'm sure that they will take pride in who they are contributing to, and that people will be aware of this.

There was a post I made in which I was looking for the average household expenditure on, as an example, music cds, but I didn't get any figures after some quick googling. I'm sure that this figure is not massive, and to keep the music flowing at the same pace we would need to achieve a fraction of the amount coming from donations - probably around 60% (this not accurate), because without copyright people will give money direct to artists, but today they do not get close to 100% from sales.

Aloone_Jonez:

--- Quote from: piratePenguin on 10 August 2010, 16:58 ---
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez on 10 August 2010, 14:49 ---
--- Quote from: piratePenguin on 10 August 2010, 12:27 ---The renaissance time saw some of the most impressive artwork that was ever seen - artists received money through patrons who liked their work - I am thinking about a much similar system, except the patron can be a collective.
--- End quote ---
You can't compare then with now, back then you couldn't duplicate the artwork at no cost at all which you can do today.
--- End quote ---
The point is that the artwork was done back then, and people were getting paid for it.


--- End quote ---
Of course they were but you're still missing the point, you can't compare how things were before computers to now.

Copyright was created with the advent of technologies which could copy large volumes of artwork at a low price: namely the printing press. Before then, books had to be copied out  by scribes, a process so costly in itself, no one ever thought of copyright. If copying a piece of art is nearly as costly as creating it in the first place, so-called piracy isn't an issue so there's no need for copyright.

Now copying large of artwork is cheap, the price per copy is near zero and copyright exists to make the price artificially high to theoretically compensate the author.


--- Quote ---Again, you're saying this will happen for sure. I agree it will happen, but it will be met with stigma I am certain, and you will not get significant numbers on board with this carry on. (people actually have a sense that people should work for what they get - and they will know that the movies etc are, by default, free)
--- End quote ---
Well I'm not saying it's certain and I don't want to get anyone on board with the idea of eliminating copyright because I think it's a silly idea.


--- Quote ---Also, by far, more and more media consumption is happening in one location - that is our computers (and mobiles, which will be our music players and storage devices in the near future). In the future, all of our favorite bands,
--- End quote ---
But people still go to watch films at the cinema, buy CDs, DVDs and go to see live music. Many so-called industry experts have been predicting the end of cinemas for years but it's not happened, although lots of the smaller cinemas have closed.


--- Quote ---films, etc will be on there, and I've talked about some simple system where people can send out money to artists they enjoy. We might get people who pay 3 euro to watch a film with their girlfriend who go home and send 25 euro to the creators online. Or they might add them to their favorites so that at the end of each month 40 euro will be shared between all favorites. We might have rich movie buffs who'd love to call themselves patrons and who share 10,000 euro a month between their favorite film creators. Maybe other people will become famous for their patronage - locally or globally.
--- End quote ---

This is  becoming a circular argument, you're assuming people will give enough to fund multimillion dollar films produced in Hollywood which I think is very naive.

Do you know how many people pay per download vs the amount of people who download for free?

Of course I could obtain figures for pay per downloads but pirate downloads aren't recorded so it's difficult to know.

I do believe that people will donate money but I don't think it will be enough to fund the current business model for the current film and music industries.

For a start you should look at how many people donate money to a certain open source project vs the amount of revenue made by a proprietary software vendor selling exactly the same product with a similar market share. If indeed such a comparison can be done, I'm pretty sure that the amount received in donations would be a fraction of what the proprietary vendor makes; this is the sort of comparison you need to make. Then of course you can't compare software to film and music as it's a collaboration between 100s of people not at few.

I suppose there are other sources of revenue such as advertising, for example  the producer could display company logos on billboards displayed in the scenery and mention their product names in the script but it might reduce the quality of the film and I doubt it will make as much money as DVDs, ticket sales, merchandise etc.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version