The Death of D. (Was Tango vs Phobos)

[Mike Parker]

downs wrote:
> Mike Parker wrote:
>> downs wrote:
>>> downs wrote:
>>>> Mike Parker wrote:
>>>>> I'm sure we
>>>>> can agree that if you want a chair I've crafted and I want to charge
>>>>> you
>>>>> for it, then I am well within my right to do so.
>>>> Could we PLEASE keep the comparisons to physical goods out of it?
>>>> NOT. THE SAME. THING.
>> IT. IS. THE SAME. THING.
>>
>>>>> How is it that when my
>>>>> creation is infinitely copyable, I suddenly lose that right?
>>>> Because you don't lose the original anymore. This has been said
>>>> hundreds of times.
>>>>
>>> To clarify this point: you still have a *temporary* right to control
>>> the duplication of your infinitely copyable creation.
>>>
>>> But it is *not the same right* as the one that allows you to charge
>>> for the chair.
>> But it *is* the same right.
>>
>> I really didn't expect anyone to give me anything new on this. It's
>> always the same arguments back and forth. This is one of those issues
>> that people rarely change their minds about.
> 
> So ..
> 
> you are saying property right is the same thing as copyright?

No, I'm not. My assertion is that the creator of a thing has a right to 
determine if and how that thing will be distributed to others. The rest 
of the world doesn't suddenly get to decide that they can distribute the 
thing freely just because they can. If I create a PC game, I dictate if 
it's freeware or commercial -- not the users.

Copyright and property rights are different, but I do believe they can, 
and should, work in tandem. I don't agree with the current state of 
copyright law, but let me tell you how I think things /should/ be.

I think the idea of "licensing" music, movies, software, and whatnot is 
absurd. What we need is a law that explicitly defines a purchase of an 
infinitely copyable product as the purchase of "one unit" of that 
product. That particular unit is now your property. You can copy it to 
your heart's content, to CD or DVD, to multiple devices, or anywhere you 
want to use it. That's the right of property that protects the 
consumer's investment.

Copyright law comes into play be preventing you from distributing copies 
of your unit without the copyright owner's permission. No matter how 
many copies you make for your own personal use, only the owner of the 
copyright (most often the creator) gets to dictate the terms of 
distribution. You cannot sell your copies, nor can you give them away to 
your friends. For the duration of the copyright, the owner of the 
copyright has every right to profit from his creation without fear of 
competing with his own product. This right protects the investment of 
the creator.

Of course, people like to argue that they can do what they like with 
their property. If they want to sell it, they should be able to. I 
agree. If you want to give up your right to the unit you purchased and 
sell it to someone else, please do. But then you should be required to 
delete every copy you possess. From that point on, you no longer have 
any right to the unit. This is the same as selling your TV to someone else.

Once the copyright expires, then people can do what they want with it. 
This holds to the original spirit and intent of copyright law -- 
allowing the creator to profit from his work while guaranteeing that it 
will eventually be freely available for all. The gives incentive for 
people to work at creating things full time.

Again, that's how I think things /should/ be. I do understand that 
reality is quite a bit different. Copyright law has been hijacked by 
corporate lobbyists to the extent that it no longer serves the purpose 
it was meant to. The concepts of IP and licensing have gotten so out of 
control (DRM) that they turn people away from what is fair and 
appropriate, instead contributing to a culture of "I can take what I 
want and you greedy corporate asses can stuff it". So we have an 
environment where producers and consumers are focused on "protecting" 
their own rights, but few are working to protect both. In the end, it's 
more than the greedy corporate asses who get hurt by it all.

At the end of the day, everyone has to make a living. Contrary to some 
assertions, I don't see that as an emotional argument. There's nothing 
illogical about the need to put food on the table. No one disputes the 
right of a carpenter to be paid for his work, nor for a doctor to be 
paid for his (though some would dispute the amount). Why, then, is it so 
difficult to accept that a software developer should be compensated for 
his work as well? Or a musician?

Some people argue that business models should change. They already are 
(apologies in advance for this being game-centric). Today, some PC game 
developers are no longer developing games for the PC. They view the 
consoles as safer territory. They are for now. You see a decline in the 
production of single player games. You see more and more games requiring 
online activation, or requiring you to be online to play. These are all 
models geared toward minimizing the damage a company suffers from 
piracy. As such, they limit the options of the end user.

My problem with piracy is not just a moral one, it's also a practical 
one. No one can say for sure where this will all lead. We could very 
well find ourselves in the Utopian paradise so many pirates spout off 
about to justify their actions, a world where people can get music, 
movies, books, and software freely while the creators can live off of 
the donations they receive from hordes of satisfied users (you'll excuse 
me if I hold some doubt that we'll see that result). But we could also 
find ourselves in a world where the independent creators, the garage 
bands and bedroom software developers, have gone the way of the dodo 
because they can't make enough to earn a living full time. A world where 
consumer rights are restricted and we have fewer options available to us 
  in how we access and use creative works.