Green Party on copyright

[caveman1917]

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

That must be the weakest argument possible. Don't forget when anyone brings up any economical statistics to state that they could've been gamed.

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.

Utility is logarithmic in money, so for any product with constant price (such as a theater ticket or DVD) the same amount of money represents less utility (or "caring") the more you have. Meaning the richer you are the more "votes" you get for the same utility. This is something proponents of capitalism can never seem to figure out.

So even people who don't really care get just as much of a vote as people who care passionately.

Except of course that if you care passionately you're still free to shower any filmmaker with as much money as you want.

Why is that more fair? It's not.

Not only is it more fair in that there would be no restrictions on the access to movies (the culture of a society being freely available to all its members and all that), it is more fair in exactly the same sense that we vote for our politicians rather than directly buy them with money.

I'll pass on your socialist art, thanks.

What socialist art are you talking about? In any case, we've gone from "copyright is necessary for movies to be produced" to "I like copyright", which is good enough.

 

[Ziggurat]

Utility is logarithmic in money, so for any product with constant price (such as a theater ticket or DVD) the same amount of money represents less utility (or "caring") the more you have. Meaning the richer you are the more "votes" you get for the same utility. This is something proponents of capitalism can never seem to figure out.

First, I'm quite aware of marginal utility (not just of money, but of every resource). Second, this doesn't translate into an argument against copyright.

Except of course that if you care passionately you're still free to shower any filmmaker with as much money as you want.

But the free rider problem still disconnects production with consumption in your model.

Not only is it more fair in that there would be no restrictions on the access to movies

Why is that more fair? It's more equal, but equal and fair are not synonymous, unless you're a communist.

it is more fair in exactly the same sense that we vote for our politicians rather than directly buy them with money.

Politics and markets are not the same. There are vast differences, and attempts to conflate them always corrupt both the market and politics.

What socialist art are you talking about?

Pick whatever socialist art you want, there's an abundance of it.

 

[caveman1917]

First, I'm quite aware of marginal utility (not just of money, but of every resource). Second, this doesn't translate into an argument against copyright.

It's not an argument against copyright, it's an argument against your claim that money transmits information in context of "people who care passionately about something" having more influence in a market mechanism. This is false since the measure of "caring" is utility, while "influence in the market" is money. It depends non-trivially on how much money you already have. A poor guy who is passionate about movies and gets to buy 1 of them will still get swamped by a rich guy who doesn't care as much and buys a dozen of them.

But the free rider problem still disconnects production with consumption in your model.

You don't seem to be able to think outside the context of the market. In the model I proposed there is no free rider problem since all "rides" (views of movies) are free (on an individual level). The free rider problem in that context is people dodging taxes, like they do now, which is not specific to what I proposed.

Why is that more fair? It's more equal, but equal and fair are not synonymous, unless you're a communist.

You can argue ad infinitum about what is fair. In any case, my main point was to counter your claim that copyright is necessary for movies to be produced. It, as well as a market mechanism in general, is just one way of doing things. If you find yourself adoring the market so much that you lose the imagination to even conceive of solutions outside of it, then it's time to take a step back and get a bigger picture.

Politics and markets are not the same. There are vast differences, and attempts to conflate them always corrupt both the market and politics.

Except that it is still society which determines which things belong to the market and which don't. Currently there is a massive ability for culture to be made available to all. I can go online and download any movie I want. But in order for the market to work you require scarcity, so you make it illegal to "pirate" movies to induce artifical scarcity. Here's an idea, if you have so much problems with keeping artificial scarcity going (countering pirating of movies) for the market to keep working then maybe that just means that a market mechanism is a lousy solution to this problem (the problem being making sure movie makers get paid for their effort).

 

[a_unique_person]

That's the problem, isn't it? It's got nothing to do with making the actual art or music available, but with how much profit can be achieved from it.

The way companies are folded into companies and corporations buy portfolios of copyrights makes it almost impossible to use a post-1923 image, or a post-1895 "corporate work-for-hire" unless you can afford someone on staff to research every single item.

Otherwise you risk somebody suing you for using a piece of newspaper from the 1930s as a background in an art piece.

Andy Warhol's pop art would never have been able to exist in our current copyright climate.

Walt Disney's been dead nearly 50 years now. I think it's time to let his mouse go instead of continuing to milk it for every possible cent.

(Seriously, you can be sued for a black silhouette comprised of 3 circles like the Mickey logo)

How about this?