Major Copyright Judgement

[BobTheDonkey]

GreyICE was talking about the revenue generated by the artists themselves vs. the labels, he is indeed correct that the music industry is very different in how much piracy hurts the artist(assuming that there is some damage for the sake of the hypothetical comparison between models).

Those same artists(now game designers/programmers instead of musicians), when making a PC game, have no outlet to get paid other than the sales of that game. They can't go on tour and sell merch like a band can off of the fame generated by their albums popularity.

ETA: You totally ruined my argument that no one was conflating the revenue models! Boo!

I was discussing the problems, from the consumer point of view, with the revenue model.

But you are correct that the revenue model for the artists is quite different. Then again, I don't know of any game programmers that are multi-millionaires in the way that musicians commonly are.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

So, again, you think that people who compose, say, a song, are not really the owners of that song ?

Absolutely. Ownership is purely a social convention. There are hunter/gatherer societies where nobody owns anything. The idea that you have a society-transcending "right" to own things is just silly.

(Libertarians hold it as a core dogma that you have such a right, which is just one of many reasons Libertarians are silly).

In our society ownership is a combination of custom and the legal right to have the police come around and enforce your right to exclusive use of something. As I stated earlier, I see no clear case that it's in society's interest to have the police come around and enforce a composer's right to exclusive use of a song.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I was discussing the problems, from the consumer point of view, with the revenue model.

But you are correct that the revenue model for the artists is quite different. Then again, I don't know of any game programmers that are multi-millionaires in the way that musicians commonly are.

Doom was released with the first complete game available as shareware, and that sold one million registrations. (cite).

The argument that we need copyright in order to have big, glossy, multimillion dollar budget video games is exactly like the argument that we need copyright in order to have multimillion dollar blockbuster movies. Not only do those genres seem to be doing just fine despite the existence of piracy, but if those genres did die out life would go on with smaller-budget games and movies.

 

[GreyICE]

No, I really didn't. You were accusing people of conflating the revenue models for music and movies/games, then attacking these imaginary people for being morons.

I wasn't baiting you at all, kid.

Well, nice to see you pirate your thoughts too. I'm sending you to prison for 4 years and you owe me $100,000,000 now.

Suffer, pirate douchebag.

P.S. They've been conflating the revenue models since page 4 or 5, and if it was that late it's only because Avalon worked out personal issues for 2 or 3 pages.

 

[GreyICE]

Absolutely. Ownership is purely a social convention. There are hunter/gatherer societies where nobody owns anything. The idea that you have a society-transcending "right" to own things is just silly.

(Libertarians hold it as a core dogma that you have such a right, which is just one of many reasons Libertarians are silly).

In our society ownership is a combination of custom and the legal right to have the police come around and enforce your right to exclusive use of something. As I stated earlier, I see no clear case that it's in society's interest to have the police come around and enforce a composer's right to exclusive use of a song.

We're arguing around a begged question, which will not get answered unless someone proposes it.

Does society have an interest in seeing art (such as music, writing, etc.) created? Or is society neutral on whether or not it should exist?

Question 2 - despite the fact that the world is more complicated than libertarians think, do the basics of supply and demand determine how people earn livings and spend money, in a broad sense?

 

[Corsair 115]

At present video games are the inverse of the above, most games are just designed for mindless entertainment, but there are games that do offer insights into the human condition. From what I've heard (since I'm not a PS3 gamer) the game Heavy Rain spends plenty of time on character development. The PC game Mafia was essentially an interactive movie about the life of a man in the Mafia.

Part of the issue to may be the fact that video games are a different medium and different form of storytelling. That is, gaming is interactive—the player is constantly involved in the action and, effectively, is directing the story where to go. Movies, books, and TV shows are not interactive; rather the viewer/reader sits back and the story is told to them.

Bit of a difference there, I'd say, which surely must have some impact on what kind of things can be done.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

We're arguing around a begged question, which will not get answered unless someone proposes it.

Does society have an interest in seeing art (such as music, writing, etc.) created? Or is society neutral on whether or not it should exist?

I think it does. I'm just not willing to accept as an unquestioned premise that the modern copyright system is, all things considered, the best way to encourage the creation of art.

 

[Belz...]

Well, if you want to talk about revenue model for artists, sure, that's different. But for the developer/distributor it's the same.

Personally I care more about the issue of ownership.

 

[Belz...]

Absolutely. Ownership is purely a social convention. There are hunter/gatherer societies where nobody owns anything. The idea that you have a society-transcending "right" to own things is just silly.

It's also a flaming strawman. Who said anything about that ? No one here, I'm sure.

As I stated earlier, I see no clear case that it's in society's interest to have the police come around and enforce a composer's right to exclusive use of a song.

And what about the individual who made the song ? Let's forget society for a moment, now.

 

[Belz...]

I think it does. I'm just not willing to accept as an unquestioned premise that the modern copyright system is, all things considered, the best way to encourage the creation of art.

Well I'm very sure that telling artists they don't own the songs they compose is a bad way to encourage art.

 

[Wildy]

Part of the issue to may be the fact that video games are a different medium and different form of storytelling. That is, gaming is interactive—the player is constantly involved in the action and, effectively, is directing the story where to go. Movies, books, and TV shows are not interactive; rather the viewer/reader sits back and the story is told to them.

Bit of a difference there, I'd say, which surely must have some impact on what kind of things can be done.

That's true. But I think it would be fair to say that the fact that games are interactive opens up whole new ways of storytelling.

Should we say that the fact that games are interactive means that they aren't art though?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It's also a flaming strawman. Who said anything about that ? No one here, I'm sure.

I was making a point but I don't think you grasped it.

"Ownership" is totally socially constructed. As a society we can assign ownership rights, or lack thereof, any way we want. If you want to argue that one way of assigning rights is better than another you better have some evidence.

And what about the individual who made the song ? Let's forget society for a moment, now.

What about them? I'm still of the view that it's probably not in society's best interest, all things considered, to send the police around to collect rent off anybody else who performs the song and prevent people exchanging recordings of it.

Well I'm very sure that telling artists they don't own the songs they compose is a bad way to encourage art.

The modern copyright regime is a very recent invention, and songs go back as far as human history. Thinking that you need copyright to get people to write songs is approximately as inane as thinking than you need franchised restaurants to get people to make steak.

The modern music industry is a historical aberration based on the short-lived technological period between when it first became commercially viable to charge rent on reproducing recordings, and when it became non-commercially practical to share music at a grass-roots level via the internet. Needless to say that industry is digging in its heels and trying to leverage the legal and political systems to preserve itself, but the fact is we no longer need that industry to produce and disseminate music.

If the music recording industry died tomorrow we'd get our recorded music from the internet, artists would support themselves mostly through live performance as they have done throughout history, and life would go on.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

...If you wish to call this pro-piracy so be it. I call it not ignoring the evidence.

It wasn't meant to be a dig, merely an observation.

...There is no evidence that it's not a net loss to the business as a whole, by the way - the record companies do take a hit (how much you care about them is entirely up to you).

Me personally? I don't care - at least not for the major labels (they generally sign / produce utter garbage, lowest common denominator stuff that I'm not interested in and no longer invest in the artist long term like the labels did in the seventies). I suspect downloaders care even less or would even use it as justification - hence my observation.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

The modern copyright regime is a very recent invention, and songs go back as far as human history. Thinking that you need copyright to get people to write songs is approximately as inane as thinking than you need franchised restaurants to get people to make steak.

The modern music industry is a historical aberration based on the short-lived technological period between when it first became commercially viable to charge rent on reproducing recordings, and when it became non-commercially practical to share music at a grass-roots level via the internet. Needless to say that industry is digging in its heels and trying to leverage the legal and political systems to preserve itself, but the fact is we no longer need that industry to produce and disseminate music.

If the music recording industry died tomorrow we'd get our recorded music from the internet, artists would support themselves mostly through live performance as they have done throughout history, and life would go on.

That's a very interesting point - and one I hadn't thought of until you raised it. Obvious in hindsight - folk songs for instance were regularly exchanged, 'stolen', added to, amended etc. Obviously that's not quite the same thing as the recording of a performance but in terms of 'rights' to the song itself, it's very much the same thing and it never stopped people writing new songs. There is a counter-argument of course that society is now very different from the wandering minstrel days but increasing attendances at live gigs indicates it's still a potentially valid model.

Thanks for the thought-provoking post.

 

[GreyICE]

I think it does. I'm just not willing to accept as an unquestioned premise that the modern copyright system is, all things considered, the best way to encourage the creation of art.

What way would be better?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

What way would be better?

Well, having no copyright on songs at all worked fine for the bulk of human history. Songs still got made up, music was still made, musicians still made a living, great composers composed great compositions and all that sort of thing went on just fine.

I don't think it would harm performers greatly. The overwhelming majority of performers make the bulk of their money from performing, and people would come to see them because of their performance skills regardless of whether their corporate owners held a government-enforced monopoly on reproductions of their music.

Professionally-produced music recordings would still be distributed, they'd just be advertising expenses for artists rather than revenue streams for RIAA member corporations.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Well, having no copyright on songs at all worked fine for the bulk of human history. Songs still got made up, music was still made, musicians still made a living, great composers composed great compositions and all that sort of thing went on just fine.

For most of human history, these things were generated by patronage -- wealthy folks would pay artists to compose works and provide entertainment.
Record companies provide much the same role.
What do you propose replacing them with?

 

[Belz...]

"Ownership" is totally socially constructed. As a society we can assign ownership rights, or lack thereof, any way we want. If you want to argue that one way of assigning rights is better than another you better have some evidence.

Who cares if it's a social construct ? Laws are social constructs. Why the hell are you even mentioning this idiotic truism ?

I'm asking you if you think that artists should have a right to their works ? I'm not asking you if you think that right descends from God or Gaia, I'm asking you if, in OUR society, YOU think they SHOULD.

What about them? I'm still of the view that it's probably not in society's best interest

I've just asked you to forget about society for that question. Are you completely unable to debate within specified guidelines ?

all things considered, to send the police around to collect rent off anybody else who performs the song and prevent people exchanging recordings of it.

Do you think the police should collect physical property stolen from someone, or are you going to argue from egalitarianism again ?

The modern copyright regime is a very recent invention, and songs go back as far as human history. Thinking that you need copyright to get people to write songs is approximately as inane as thinking than you need franchised restaurants to get people to make steak.

And is ANOTHER flaming strawman. I didn't say it's necessary. I said that it doesn't encourage someone to do something if that person has no right to that thing or any benefit from it whatsoever.

If the music recording industry died tomorrow we'd get our recorded music from the internet, artists would support themselves mostly through live performance as they have done throughout history, and life would go on.

I wasn't aware that the argument was entirely based on revenue. Hey! No, I remember, now! I specifically said it wasn't.

 

[Belz...]

Well, having no copyright on songs at all worked fine for the bulk of human history.

Slavery worked fine for the bulk of human history, until we found better incentives for people to work. I'm sure even you can spot the fallacy in your reasoning, above.

 

[GreyICE]

Well, having no copyright on songs at all worked fine for the bulk of human history. Songs still got made up, music was still made, musicians still made a living, great composers composed great compositions and all that sort of thing went on just fine.

Ah, it's time for a history lesson.

Copyright originated in 1709 (300 years ago). Snagging straight from Wiki:

In whom the undoubted Property of such Books and Writings, as the Product of their Learning and Labour, remains or of such Persons, to whom such Authors, for good Considerations, have lawfully Transferred their Right and Title therein, is not only a great Discouragement to Learning in general, which in all Civilised Nations ought to receive the greatest Countenance and Encouragement, but is also a Notorious Invasion of the Property of the Rightful Proprietors of such Books and Writings... For preventing therefore such Unjust and Pernicious Practices for the future... and for the Preservation of the Property of the Rightful Owner thereof...

So for the bulk of human history, there existed no method to reproduce something someone else had done.

As soon as it popped up, the copyright popped up as something deemed necessary.

I don't think it would harm performers greatly. The overwhelming majority of performers make the bulk of their money from performing, and people would come to see them because of their performance skills regardless of whether their corporate owners held a government-enforced monopoly on reproductions of their music.

Professionally-produced music recordings would still be distributed, they'd just be advertising expenses for artists rather than revenue streams for RIAA member corporations.

Okay, now how about films and video games?