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

[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.