The Death of D. (Was Tango vs Phobos)

[Adam D. Ruppe]

On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 04:12:18PM +0100, Jb wrote:
> So yes current copyright laws do sometimes produce undesirable results. And 
> they are not perfect. And I agree that fair use should be expanded, and 
> copyright lengths reduced.

Agreed.

> The amount of art produced prior to the 20th centuary is miniscule compared 
> to what was produced during it. There have been millions of songs, books, 
> and films that have made in the last 100 years.

This isn't because of copyright. Copyright has been around since about 1700;
it didn't suddenly come to existence in 1900, so you can't say it is
the cause of the explosion of new stuff around that time.

What did change around 1900 is an explosion of industry, an explosion
of human population, and just a general explosion of wealth.

World population today is 4x bigger than it was in 1900, so all other
things being equal, it makes sense to see 4x more stuff created.

World population in 1800 was about 2/3 that of 1900.

[My source for the above numbers is Wikipedia:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population>]

It makes sense that the 20th century saw more stuff created than previous
centuries based on population growth alone. Similar situations exist in
general wealth factors - the average person today is much richer than the
average person 100 years ago, giving him more time to devote to stuff like
art.


Higher technology is also a significant factor. Thirty years ago, it is
unlikely someone like me would have been able to become a computer programmer
at all - I simply couldn't afford it. But now, computers are so cheap, and
the necessary programs so easy to get, that random high school students 
can pick it up and start making stuff.
(Thanks to Digital Mars here; I first learned C++ on the free download of dmc.)

And thanks to the Internet, those random students and look at a wealth of
existing stuff to learn from and release their own stuff with trivial ease.


Similar things exist in other fields. Anyone can now publish his own writings,
amateurs can create and publish images and animation.

Copyright might take some credit for this. I'm sure it does, as
without it, something like Digital Mars might not exist at all. But it
can't anything near to all the credit, and now since this situation already
exists, removing copyright isn't going to suddenly erase what is already
done.

> And your supposed ideas of how it could work just emphasise the point. The 
> problem is that getting a 100 people together, and getting them to agree on 
> what they want, and how much they will pay, and then finding someone who 
> will do the work, is just absurd.

Nonsense.

Create a website with a donation system. Someone looking for the software
you are about to have written can find this website and decide if he wants
to help pay the developer to write it or if he simply doesn't want it to
get done.

The donation system wouldn't be just a donation system, it would be entering
into a contract to get what you paid for - if the developer doesn't deliver,
you get your money back.

Furthermore, since you are paying into the contract, you get a say in
what you want. Perhaps shareholders can vote on acceptance tests or
on must have features to write into the contract.


Exactly like they would when buying packaged software, except here they
pay first then get the software made rather than the other way around. 

> You are insane if you think that system 
> will be more efficient and more productive than the current copyright / 
> capatilist one.

This /is/ a capitalist system. People invest in a product to suit their
own needs - that's the very definition of capitalism.

Even the obvious downside of the above plan: someone chooses not to invest
hoping that someone else will and he still benefits, is purely capitalist.
He is looking out for his own interests, trying to get the most product
for the least amount of money. The counterbalance to this is that if he
doesn't invest in it, he might not get what he wants, or it might not be
created at all. So he has to make a decision.

If I was a software developer in such a world, I'd keep the current list
of shareholders and amount of money I've been paid a secret. Then
someone looking at the website doesn't know if he has to invest or not
to get the product, so hopefully, he will, meaning I get a bit more
profit.

The customer is safe in donating to me, even if I don't get enough
capital to make the product, since if I don't deliver, he can sue me for
his money back.


That is pure, unrestrained and safe competition in a wholly capitalist system.

-- 
Adam D. Ruppe
http://arsdnet.net