end of intellectual property?

[javasaurus]

Slashdot reported today that Hasbro is suing Facebook over a couple of aps that mimic Boggle and Scrabble.

Under the current laws I say, "good for Hasbro." In our current system, if you don't aggressively protect your rights, you lose them.

But I have to wonder, what happens if we simply abbolish such rights. No more copyright. Poof, just like that. You could copy all the music, movies, video games, and novels that you want. Of course, some say that without the profits that come from sales and royalties, there'd be no motive to make new movies, new video games. But really, don't we have more movies and games now than we could ever possibly watch? Musicians could still earn some income from live performances, and video games could get sponsorship for having Link drink a Pepsi to renew his life points. Since we'd be saving so much money by not paying for music and books, Congress could raise taxes, and sponsor more artists to make quality movies and music. Oh, and there could be a telethon every year to raise money for novelists, similar to what PBS does now.

Comments

[wilhelmina-d.livejournal.com]

Pardon my cynicism here, but writers and other artists get soooo much respect now. I can just imagine what would happen if we got rid of the societal value indicator of money. Win a few Pulitzers and sure, you get respect, but if you're a romance author or sci-fi author and your own fans are embarrassed to admit they like the genre no one would want to fund you.

I don't think this would work at all, though it's a nice thought. Plus, who defines what "art/s" get funded and what doesn't?

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

Just to make it clear, I was attempting sarcasm. I am extremely anti-piracy, because I believe in the value of intellectual property (though as acroyear70 points out in his comments below, there are potential drawbacks to long-term rights). I tried to paint a distopian picture of the world that might result.

[wilhelmina-d.livejournal.com]

Sorry - I didn't pick up on the sarcasm. On the surface, some of the idealism of being able to make art for art's sake sounds great and I thought that you were pondering what that would mean. Like everything else that I mess up on for the last/next few days, I'm just gonna blame it on the cold meds! ;)

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

Since we'd be saving so much money by not paying for music and books, Congress could raise taxes, and sponsor more artists to make quality movies and music.

Smacks of Socialism, that. Keep in mind what happens when those who pay the bills don't like what someone's done.

Think Shostakovich. Experimental, creative, a sure-fire genius...

...'til one man didn't like something he heard.

The entire "Party" gave his opera a scathing review the next day as if *everybody* hated it. All because of the opinion of *one man*.

That's the danger of supporting the arts by hidden committee. And it's an *extreme* danger.

Just as I'm against the [Soviet] Russian policy in place now where one can't do negative ads in politics, I'm against the idea of a committee controlling what art can and can't be made.

Yes, you're going to get the negative lies along with the right to speak a negative truth.

And just as surely as the free market may create art of the "throwing shit at a statue of Jesus" variety, it also gives room for works of genius that the future will recognize as having worth even if the present doesn't. When something must be judged as worthy of paying for before it's even created, it might as well never exist.

No, i'm not in favor of "no more copyright" - incentive is what it is. But the incentive should be to create more works justified by their income FOR WHAT THEY ARE AND WHAT YOU NEED.

The issue is not copyright in and of itself. It's this idea that my work becomes responsible for the incomes of my *great-grandchildren* as the Conan-Doyle and Burroughs estates would have it, and pretty much guaranteed by the "75 years past the creator's death" update of the copyright laws, all to keep Mickey Mouse from advertising for cheap gasoline. (yeah, that's the common excuse, but nevermind the fact that Disney in '44 himself pitched an idea to Standard Oil to use his characters for adverts, up to the point of having his animators make a fake commercial. No, i'm not against Disney for lobbying for the extension - I'm just pissed at Congress for passing it and the Supreme Court for deciding it still counts as "limited").

The whole concept of America's history is that of setting it up so your children can succeed, not setting it up so your children don't have to work. I can make a better world for my children through creating arts that will eventually be in the public domain (so *all* children can enjoy them, regardless of money) and have a high enough income to provide them with a good education so that they can succeed. THAT was the founders intent on copyright.

It was never the idea of making one big hit and resting on that laurel for not only the rest of my own life, but to have my grand children never have to work because they're still collecting on my own residuals.

Does this mean that some day someone can take my work and screw with it without anybody's consent?

Of course it does!

But go ask Shakespeare if he minds...

[rsteachout.livejournal.com]

Throwing in an AMEN here!

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

As I responded to wilhelmina_d above, my post was intended as sarcasm, a portrayal of what I see as a quasi-distopian society that would occur with the lack of copyright.

I will grant that there are issues with copyright law as they stand, including overlong extensions. But currently bothers me is that a song made yesterday could end up being mass-copied around the globe without permission of, much less payment to, the originator. And if the owner of that work complains, they are seen as a villain. With advancing technology, it becomes increasingly difficult to protect copyright (while at the same time protecting fair use), and I am concerned that the ultimate solution will be to abolish copyright. The only other way to solve the problem would be to sway public opinion away from piracy.

[wilhelmina-d.livejournal.com]

Part of the problem of the copyright holders being looked as as villains is the big companies like RIAA and BMI/ASCAP going after people for doing things like ripping a CD that they legally bought onto their personal computer so they can put it on a personal mp3 player. It's hard for people to get behind a company that persecutes normal people for normal things.

Now going after something like Napster (as originally launched) and other file sharing stuff, sucks as a user, but I can understand and sympathize.

HOWEVER, it makes me wonder why they don't go after used bookstores or libraries. They don't pay royalties. Why is it OK in one medium and not in another?

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

Copyright is, literally, the right to make a copy. With books, CDs, etc., you have the right to sell it or give it away or loan it. So used-book stores and libraries are OK. When you make a back-up copy of something you've purchased, you are obligated to destroy the copy if you pass the original to someone else.

Software works a bit differently. You aren't really buying a copy of the software, but a licence to use it, which makes things a bit wonky.