There is no copyright

[carld]

Originally Posted by taosaur

Legality is hardly the only thing stopping everyone from torrenting every scrap of media they consume right now.

I never claimed it was the only thing, but it is one of the things.

Originally Posted by taosaur

The vast majority of people prefer to have a verifiably authentic copy from a known, trusted source, decreasing the risk of viruses, spyware, defects and distortion.

And in a non-copyright world where such things will be legal, clearing houses will spring up that make money from advertising. They'll claim they have virus free downloads straight off the original sources -- Torrent Away! And please click on our advertising banners!

Originally Posted by taosaur

In a world without copyright, there would be even more noise in the signal the farther you got from 'official channels,' increasing the value of brand recognition. In a more open market, there's also more value for consumers in discovering and creators in being discovered, i.e. promotion.

So where's the money for promotion coming from? Certainly not from book, movie or music sales. And promotion doesn't generate money, it eats it for breakfast.

Originally Posted by taosaur

Whoever contracts with the creator to distribute their work also simply has it first.

For the two minutes it takes someone to upload it to the legal torrent sites. There's no value in having something first for 5 minutes.

Originally Posted by taosaur

All of these things still have value, even if it would need to be leveraged differently than in the present system, and even if that value is diminished in comparison to the present system.

I don't see where any of those things has any value at all.

[PKFFW]

I wonder how many of those advocating the abolition of copyright make their living, or even a substantial part of their living, from creative endeavours. Same goes for those suggesting how easy it would be to still make money from creative endeavours if copyright were abolished.

Or are you all making your money by swapping X number of hours for X number of dollars pretty much regardless of how much actual work is done or product is produced?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I wonder how many of those advocating the abolition of copyright make their living, or even a substantial part of their living, from creative endeavours. Same goes for those suggesting how easy it would be to still make money from creative endeavours if copyright were abolished.

Or are you all making your money by swapping X number of hours for X number of dollars pretty much regardless of how much actual work is done or product is produced?

I don't think anyone (worth paying attention to) is advocating the removal of copyright; some of us are saying that, if it happened, society would not collapse into a stagnant heap of boredom, but rather, we'd find a way to pay creators.

Probably not one that worked as well as copyright, which is why nobody (serious) is trying to eliminate copyright--nobody has an idea for anything as good, much less better, to replace it.

(I don't make a living based on copyright, but I do a lot of hobby work that does rely on it. I wouldn't post fanfic publicly if it weren't protected by copyright law.)

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I wonder how many of those advocating the abolition of copyright make their living, or even a substantial part of their living, from creative endeavours. Same goes for those suggesting how easy it would be to still make money from creative endeavours if copyright were abolished.

All endeavors are creative. The things some people don't think of

Why do you feel that things should be easy? Should things be easy?

As was mentioned previously, abandoning copyright will pave the way for a free market where only the best creative endeavors survive, where survival is rewarded with monetary contributions.

The day copyright is abandoned is the day we are presented with art that is truly created for artistic purposes.

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by carld

...

Creative works will still have to come into the public's awareness and get into their hands. You just suggested one way yourself that the process could be monetized. If that monetization does not bring the content producers in for a cut, there will be no more creative work.

Which came first, art or copyright? So which, would you say, depends on the other for its existence?

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I wonder how many of those advocating the abolition of copyright make their living, or even a substantial part of their living, from creative endeavours. Same goes for those suggesting how easy it would be to still make money from creative endeavours if copyright were abolished.

I'm only advocating the abolition of dour, unimaginative prognostication.

[carld]

Originally Posted by taosaur

Creative works will still have to come into the public's awareness and get into their hands. You just suggested one way yourself that the process could be monetized. If that monetization does not bring the content producers in for a cut, there will be no more creative work.

Since you cut my quote, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Can you indicate what you mean?

Art of course came first and art can exist without copyright, but I just don't see how artists are going to make a living in a non-copyright world.

Originally Posted by taosaur

I'm only advocating the abolition of dour, unimaginative prognostication.

You can make your points without resulting to sideways insults.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by carld

Art of course came first and art can exist without copyright, but I just don't see how artists are going to make a living in a non-copyright world.

Does that even matter? What is an artist?

I would guess that the majority of artists have never made a living from their art with or without copyright. Working from that assumption, instead of the one where every artist is entitled to billions of theoretical internet dollars, we can easily abandon copyright and use the new knowledge for ever greater work.

It is also assumed that the majority do not care about copyright, (excepting perhaps for those who have suffered from injustices caused by its existence) So perhaps abandoning copyright will effect no discernible change in the actions of the content consumer. A new site might become popular that hosts the most popular files for public consumption and it might ask for donations for its continued existence, or subsist on content related ads such as this site...

[carld]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Does that even matter? What is an artist?

I would guess that the majority of artists have never made a living from their art with or without copyright. Working from that assumption, instead of the one where every artist is entitled to billions of theoretical internet dollars, we can easily abandon copyright and use the new knowledge for ever greater work.

You're resorting to hyperbole. Again, how do creative types who make their living producing art, or would like to, continue to do so in a world with no copyright? You've yet to answer that question in any serious manner.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

It is also assumed that the majority do not care about copyright, (excepting perhaps for those who have suffered from injustices caused by its existence) So perhaps abandoning copyright will effect no discernible change in the actions of the content consumer. A new site might become popular that hosts the most popular files for public consumption and it might ask for donations for its continued existence, or subsist on content related ads such as this site...

I think you're completely wrong.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by carld

You're resorting to hyperbole. Again, how do creative types who make their living producing art, or would like to, continue to do so in a world with no copyright? You've yet to answer that question in any serious manner.

Why are you suggesting that I answer this question? I only advocate for the abolition of copyright.

The artists might have to learn new art forms, or some such thing. Maybe they can reduce their expenses while they work on their art? Hang out in the library and write books?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Someone else could grab the notes, add an intro, and publish under both names. That still gives the original author credit, but not as much as they would get on their own.

But it is still fraud publishing under both names.

Not if the book is published as, "Super Breakthrough by John Q Schemer, based on an article by Jane Scientist." And the article could be quoted selectively to support JQ Schemer's pet theories, when the original didn't support them at all.

But quoting from an article is allowed now. So what would be the difference?

Do you have any court cases were copyright actually have been used as you suggest for scientific work? And then in a way that stimulated scientific progress or innovaiton.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I wonder how many of those advocating the abolition of copyright make their living, or even a substantial part of their living, from creative endeavours. Same goes for those suggesting how easy it would be to still make money from creative endeavours if copyright were abolished.

What is the point here? Do you mean that you are not allowed to make money on something you think is a bad idea?

It seems a bit bad to not work for removing something bad just because you make money on it. So I do not see what your point is.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

IMO, copyright is completely irrelevant to academic publishing. For example, I used to be an academic physicist and in physics all papers are published in an open access to all electronic repository before being published in an actual journal.

What is the academy but a collection of individuals thinking? Or one individual posting?

[carld]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Why are you suggesting that I answer this question? I only advocate for the abolition of copyright.

The artists might have to learn new art forms, or some such thing. Maybe they can reduce their expenses while they work on their art? Hang out in the library and write books?

I'm suggesting it, because that's my objection to getting rid copyright. If you end copyright, artists need some way to continue to earn a living from their art, what is it? If there's no viable replacement then ending copyright will end the production of creative works.

They can reduce expenses down to the bare white knuckle, but if there's no money coming there's no money coming in. And why would they write books in a world where any and every book is almost instantly available for download?

But honestly, haven't we chased around this particular mulberry bush enough times? Show me how artists can realistically continue to earn a living from their art and I'll agree that copyright is the right thing to do.

Edit: No, "right thing to do" is still overstating it, but I'd at least consider the idea.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I don't think anyone (worth paying attention to) is advocating the removal of copyright; some of us are saying that, if it happened, society would not collapse into a stagnant heap of boredom, but rather, we'd find a way to pay creators.

Then my remark was not directed towards those people.

Having said that, I don't think those advocating keeping copyright are suggesting the world would collapse into a stagnant heap of boredom.(at least no one worth paying attention too. ) What they are saying is that artists would find it near impossible to make any money directly from their creative efforts without resorting to ad hoc add ons.

Do those who trade X hours for X dollars need to resort to value adding beyond their direct efforts for their employer? Or finding other incidentals to add to their work in order to be paid? Why should artists be required to?

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Probably not one that worked as well as copyright, which is why nobody (serious) is trying to eliminate copyright--nobody has an idea for anything as good, much less better, to replace it.

(I don't make a living based on copyright, but I do a lot of hobby work that does rely on it. I wouldn't post fanfic publicly if it weren't protected by copyright law.)

I'm all for finding another way to pay artists, yet a new way(as opposed to patronage or barter or some other throw back to the past) hasn't been found yet so why do so many seem to think it will easily and magically appear if we abolish copyright?

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

All endeavors are creative. The things some people don't think of

Word games are fun aren't they?

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Why do you feel that things should be easy? Should things be easy?

You seem to want free and easy access to any person's creative efforts. Why should they not want easy payment for those efforts without having to find ad hoc add ons to get you to pay for what you want to consume?

Originally Posted by Giggleton

As was mentioned previously, abandoning copyright will pave the way for a free market where only the best creative endeavors survive, where survival is rewarded with monetary contributions.

So you keep saying and yet when questioned to give one good example of how these monetary contributions will come about you can't seem to do so.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

The day copyright is abandoned is the day we are presented with art that is truly created for artistic purposes.

Ah yes, the old "if you want to be paid for your efforts it's not truly art" argument.

Well if you don't want to consume anything that isn't created for "artistic purposes" then why don't you put your values and ideals above your desire to consume and simply do without all that art that is supposedly created for no other reason than for the creator to be paid?

Btw, do you get paid for your efforts in whatever field you make your living? And are those endeavours in any field that would be commonly referred to as "artistic" or "creative"?

Cheers,
PKFFW