Green Party on copyright

[Brian-M]

I might be wrong, but it seems that you're far more interested in the "rights" of those who would base their works on the previous creativity of others, rather that the latter.

Not particularly, it's just part of making the point that copyrights with excessive duration come at some cost to society. (Another cost might include depriving the society of access to a large body of cheap or free high-quality literature.)

With any system of basing copyright duration the creator's death, you're essentially inserting a random variable in determining the length of copyright durations which can easily affect the result by fifty years or more (depending on how long after creating the work the author happens to live).

Which means that in order to ensure that the copyright duration will always be long enough to ensure reasonable returns to the author or his estate, you end up creating a system where the vast majority of copyright durations end up lasting far too long.

I think basing the length of the copyright duration on the date of the creator's death is pretty silly. If we regard the opportunity to demand royalties or licensing fees for a length of time to be the reward for producing a creative work, then you're varying the duration of the reward on the basis of something that has nothing to do with the value of the work produced.

If the author of a creative work dies young, you're effectively punishing his estate for his early death by ending the copyright on his works decades earlier than if he had lived a long life.

And you're effectively devaluing an author's later works by having them protected by copyright for a shorter length of time than his earlier works, even though his later works are produced with the benefit of long experience and are therefore most likely to be of higher quality.

Having fixed-duration copyright seems a more sensible and equitable system to me.

Even a ridiculously long fixed-duration, such a hundred years, would seem a better idea to me than setting it at seventy years after death. But, of course, that's just my opinion.

 

[Noztradamus]

Which means that, for example, if someone writes a really good Twilight fan-fic,

We already know the answer to that.

They file off the serial numbers and call it: 51 grades of colorless

 

[caveman1917]

Movies and TV depend upon their copyrights to make money. The production companies cannot make anywhere near the cost of production if they do not have that copyright protection. Which means they will not get made without copyrights.

Why would you think that? Art obviously got created before copyright existed, plenty of movies get made through cultural subsidies, as well as public domain ones that get crowd-funded.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why would you think that? Art obviously got created before copyright existed

But movies didn't.

What you're missing is that a lot of art doesn't require large capital investment. Movies do.

plenty of movies get made through cultural subsidies

No. Cultural subsidies rarely cover the entire cost of a movie production, and certainly never for big-budget movies. And in the case of France (one of the largest cultural subsidizers) they actually tax movie ticket sales to fund those subsidies. Without copyright, those ticket sales and tax receipts would evaporate.

as well as public domain ones that get crowd-funded.

Tell me: how many crowd-funded movies have you seen at a theater?

The exception still proves the rule.

 

[caveman1917]

But movies didn't.

What you're missing is that a lot of art doesn't require large capital investment. Movies do.

Capital intensive art also got created before copyright existed.

No. Cultural subsidies rarely cover the entire cost of a movie production, and certainly never for big-budget movies. And in the case of France (one of the largest cultural subsidizers) they actually tax movie ticket sales to fund those subsidies. Without copyright, those ticket sales and tax receipts would evaporate.

Why? You can tax ticket sales at theaters while at the same time having the movie shown be in the public domain.

Tell me: how many crowd-funded movies have you seen at a theater?

None, but then I don't go to theaters.

The exception still proves the rule.

You're confusing a sufficient condition with a necessary one. Just because copyright is one way to get movies being produced doesn't mean that it is necessary for it. That's a much stronger argument to make.

 

[Ziggurat]

Capital intensive art also got created before copyright existed.

That also occurred in an environment where exact digital reproduction of that art was impossible. Can you figure out the connection?

Why? You can tax ticket sales at theaters while at the same time having the movie shown be in the public domain.

Ticket prices will fall through the floor if the movie isn't copyrighted.

You're confusing a sufficient condition with a necessary one. Just because copyright is one way to get movies being produced doesn't mean that it is necessary for it. That's a much stronger argument to make.

And it's correct for the majority of movies. That a few "art-house" flicks might still exist is irrelevant. Again, the exceptions still prove the rule. And the existence of a few exceptions isn't relevant to my argument, or to the justification for copyrights. So until you address that, listing more exceptions is pointless.

 

[caveman1917]

That also occurred in an environment where exact digital reproduction of that art was impossible.

Movies have been copyrighted long before digital reproduction was common.

Can you figure out the connection?

So your argument is that digital reproduction made copyright necessary for movies to get produced? Otherwise, how is digital reproduction relevant?

Ticket prices will fall through the floor if the movie isn't copyrighted.

Your point being?

And it's correct for the majority of movies.

An assertion is not an argument. Even so, taxing ticket sales and paying it out according to relative number of tickets sold would be equivalent to getting royalties from ticket sales.

And the existence of a few exceptions isn't relevant to my argument, or to the justification for copyrights.

You haven't really made an argument. You seem to think that if copyright were abolished movies would just stop getting made. You're not taking into account various other ways demand for them can translate into financing, making the exceptions relevant.

 

[Ziggurat]

Movies have been copyrighted long before digital reproduction was common.

You appear to be arguing just for the sake of arguing, because you have no real point, and your post is full of irrelevancies.

First, the fact that movies were copyrighted before digital reproduction doesn't mean digital reproduction is irrelevant. Rather, it should indicate to you that there are probably other additional justifications for copyright. But since I never said that my argument was all-inclusive, this doesn't matter. Second, even supposing that digital reproduction was necessary to justify copyright, so that past copyright was unjustified, that would be irrelevant to the present, since right now, we do have digital reproduction, and we're discussing what to do right now, not what we would do if we had a time machine.

You haven't really made an argument. You seem to think that if copyright were abolished movies would just stop getting made.

Most of them would be.

You're not taking into account various other ways demand for them can translate into financing, making the exceptions relevant.

You haven't given a single example that's relevant to movies. Crowd funding does not produce $100 million movies, and government subsidies will produce government cheese. Why the hell would you want your movies to be dominated by apparatchiks of the state? Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[Brian-M]

Ticket prices will fall through the floor if the movie isn't copyrighted.

There is an alternative...

If the movie producers were to lease the movie they made to the theatres with a contractual agreement that prohibits the theatres from copying the movies or permitting others to make copies, on penalty of having to compensate the producers for loss of revenue caused by the release of unauthorised copies, then the only way the general public would be able to see the movie is to actually buy a ticket.

I suppose it wouldn't prevent people from recording the movie with their phone camera, but most people who would actually pay money to see the movie wouldn't normally be interested in watching a low quality bootleg.

Although they wouldn't be able to make as much money when they release it on DVD, because it wouldn't take long for other DVD manufacturers to copy the official DVD and release their own.

(But having copyrights in effect for a limited amount of time would still be the better way to do things.)

 

[caveman1917]

You appear to be arguing just for the sake of arguing, because you have no real point, and your post is full of irrelevancies.

You're the one who brought up digital reproduction as a counterargument to capital intensive art getting created before copyright existed.

Most of them would be.

Just repeat the assertion as many times as necessary...

No need for an actual argument here, just repeat after me: "Movies would stop getting made without copyright".

You haven't given a single example that's relevant to movies.

I've given you two. What you don't seem to understand is that just because some current system leads to existing demand for movies to be largely met, doesn't mean that if that system were to disappear that no other ways for meeting the demand would fill in the space.

Why the hell would you want your movies to be dominated by apparatchiks of the state? Thanks, but no thanks.

What on Earth are you going on about? I'm not talking about movies being "dominated by apparatchiks of the the state". I've given you an example that would be equivalent to the current system in terms of cashflow but would not use copyright (tax the ticket sales and pay it out according to relative number of tickets sold). So at the very least you have an alternative right there. What's more, the system would be more flexible since it can deviate from the "copyright cashflow model". For instance, you could get people to rate each movie after they watch it and use those ratings to skew the payouts.

 

[ponderingturtle]

What are the benefits to society of having Copyright last for 90 years instead of 30? No movie is going to be made on the idea that it will take more than 30 years to make a profit. I don't see how this would impact the creation of new content.

 

[Ziggurat]

You're the one who brought up digital reproduction as a counterargument to capital intensive art getting created before copyright existed.

You missed the point entirely. This thread is about copyright right now. We have digital reproduction right now. Digital reproduction is relevant right now.

I've given you two. What you don't seem to understand is that just because some current system leads to existing demand for movies to be largely met, doesn't mean that if that system were to disappear that no other ways for meeting the demand would fill in the space.

Yet you didn't describe such a system.

What on Earth are you going on about? I'm not talking about movies being "dominated by apparatchiks of the the state".

You are if state funding is how you want to meet demand for movies.

I've given you an example that would be equivalent to the current system in terms of cashflow but would not use copyright (tax the ticket sales and pay it out according to relative number of tickets sold).

So it's still basically copyright, but micromanaged by the state, and only for theater sales, no DVD or other market, and no merchandising.

Why is that better?

 

[Ziggurat]

There is an alternative...

If the movie producers were to lease the movie they made to the theatres with a contractual agreement that prohibits the theatres from copying the movies or permitting others to make copies, on penalty of having to compensate the producers for loss of revenue caused by the release of unauthorised copies, then the only way the general public would be able to see the movie is to actually buy a ticket.

Nice idea, but it won't work. If the movie leaks by any means, you've lost it, because you can't hold third parties to your contract. And you can't be sure you'll catch who leaked it either (and it may even be an internal leak - see Sony). And many cinemas won't have the money to reimburse you even if you do catch them, and the ones that do won't want to take the financial risk that one of their employees will leak it either.

 

[caveman1917]

There is an alternative...

There are plenty of alternatives.

If the movie producers were to lease the movie they made to the theatres with a contractual agreement that prohibits the theatres from copying the movies or permitting others to make copies, on penalty of having to compensate the producers for loss of revenue caused by the release of unauthorised copies, then the only way the general public would be able to see the movie is to actually buy a ticket.

I suppose it wouldn't prevent people from recording the movie with their phone camera, but most people who would actually pay money to see the movie wouldn't normally be interested in watching a low quality bootleg.

Although they wouldn't be able to make as much money when they release it on DVD, because it wouldn't take long for other DVD manufacturers to copy the official DVD and release their own.

(But having copyrights in effect for a limited amount of time would still be the better way to do things.)

While that is, in a strict sense, an alternative to copyright it's not an alternative on a more general level. It's still trying to solve the problem, which is to let movie producers get money for their work, based on creating artificial scarcity for it - "it's mine and you don't get to see it without paying me for it" - and letting the market have a go at it.

This requires increasing efforts to keep the artificial scarcity going, stronger copyright enforcement, DRM schemes, taking down a pirate website while 5 new ones pop up in the meantime, etc.

 

[caveman1917]

Yet you didn't describe such a system.

Ok, here is one such system without copyright. Many people currently have digital TV. So rather than having a paid Netflix-type service, have a free one. As in, you just choose the movie you want to watch and watch it. The statistics are easily available (movie A got watched 10k times, movie B 5k times etc). Then you pay the movie companies according to relative views and raise the necessary money through taxation instead.

You are if state funding is how you want to meet demand for movies.

It's not "state funding" in the sense that the state decides which movie it wants to fund to be produced. It's "state funding" in the sense that, in a system where cultural ideas are considered collectively owned rather than privately owned, it's the state (as representing the society that collectively owns its cultural ideas) that ensures that movie producers get paid for their work.

Why is that better?

That one isn't supposed to be better, it's supposed to be equivalent so as to be an argument against your implicit claim that you require private ownership and the operation of the market on it for this. Once you are at that point you can start tweaking it. For instance skewing it with ratings is better in that it allocates resources more closely according to merit.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ok, here is one such system without copyright. Many people currently have digital TV. So rather than having a paid Netflix-type service, have a free one. As in, you just choose the movie you want to watch and watch it. The statistics are easily available (movie A got watched 10k times, movie B 5k times etc). Then you pay the movie companies according to relative views and raise the necessary money through taxation instead.

First, the statistics can be gamed (ala click farms for advertising). Second, this doesn't account for how much people want something. That is, there might be, say two people who would pay $5 for movie A, but one person who would pay $10 for movie B. It's not just the number of people who want to see something which matters. And ratings won't work, people lie. Third, you're still relying on government to decide the size of the market with its taxing powers. Why should we do that?

It's not "state funding" in the sense that the state decides which movie it wants to fund to be produced. It's "state funding" in the sense that, in a system where cultural ideas are considered collectively owned rather than privately owned, it's the state (as representing the society that collectively owns its cultural ideas) that ensures that movie producers get paid for their work.

Hey, that sounds just like a description of copyright! Except, copyright done even more stupidly.

 

[ponderingturtle]

First, the statistics can be gamed (ala click farms for advertising). Second, this doesn't account for how much people want something. That is, there might be, say two people who would pay $5 for movie A, but one person who would pay $10 for movie B. It's not just the number of people who want to see something which matters. And ratings won't work, people lie. Third, you're still relying on government to decide the size of the market with its taxing powers. Why should we do that?



Hey, that sounds just like a description of copyright! Except, copyright done even more stupidly.

Really all that looks like an attempt to fit copyright into a framework that is acceptable to libertarians who do not accept intellectual property rights. So it has to be squeezed into a contract framework.

This makes it remarkably ineffective. You would have to prove that the pirate was a party to the contract and didn't buy a pirated copy someone else made and then totally legally copied it and sold it on their own.

 

[caveman1917]

First, the statistics can be gamed (ala click farms for advertising).

How exactly is that a counterargument?

Second, this doesn't account for how much people want something. That is, there might be, say two people who would pay $5 for movie A, but one person who would pay $10 for movie B. It's not just the number of people who want to see something which matters.

No, it also matters how good people think it is, or rather how much merit they think it has.

And ratings won't work, people lie.

A person, after watching a movie, is given the option to rate it. He thinks it was a superb movie and deserved a 10, therefor he will reason "It deserves a 10, and that will mean that the makers will get a bigger reward for their effort, therefor I'll give it a 0 because I just like to lie even when it's against my own interests". And you are saying this is statistically correct?

Third, you're still relying on government to decide the size of the market with its taxing powers. Why should we do that?

Rather, I'm relying on the population (each person getting one vote) rather than money (each dollar getting one vote) to decide the size of the "market".

Hey, that sounds just like a description of copyright! Except, copyright done even more stupidly.

Except of course that it's utterly different from copyright. Now an art producer would hire a lawyer to get people to stop seeing their work without paying royalties. Then they would want it to be seen as widely as possible, since that determines their share of the "market".

 

[Ziggurat]

How exactly is that a counterargument?

Because your system will not work the way you want it to. Duh.

No, it also matters how good people think it is, or rather how much merit they think it has.

What do you think the willingness to pay more money demonstrates? Money transmits information, and it does so reliably. This is something opponents of capitalism can never seem to figure out.

Rather, I'm relying on the population (each person getting one vote) rather than money (each dollar getting one vote) to decide the size of the "market".

So even people who don't really care get just as much of a vote as people who care passionately. Why is that more fair? It's not.

I'll pass on your socialist art, thanks.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Money transmits information, and it does so reliably. This is something opponents of capitalism can never seem to figure out.

That sounds like a pretty extraordinary claim. If money could transmit information reliably, then marketers' jobs would be ridiculously easy.