Copyright law vs Freedom of "information"(aka entertainment)

[the_mango55]

I know a lot of people on here seem to think copyright laws are ridiculous and that everyone should have the right to consume all the information they want, but have they considered how no copyright law would effect the industries they seem to enjoy so much (for free)?

I'll get this out of the way first so nobody bothers bringing it up. Music would easily survive without copyright law, because relative to the other things on here, music can be made quickly and inexpensively. The quality of the music does not rely on how much money you have, and musicians can make a living on live performances.

Now that that's out of the way, let's focus on the things that it would devastate, like the movie industry. Many types of movies cost tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to produce, and if they can't count on a reliable return for that investment they wouldn't be able to invest. But you say "They still make plenty of money in movie theaters!" But without copyright law a movie theater could just download the film and show it without compensating the studios, and offer huge discounts over other theaters (thus attracting more audiences). This would be totally legal.

TV relies on advertisements to create their content, whether they are broadcasting over TV channels or the internet. But if distributors don't have to worry about compensating the creators they can show the content with only enough advertisements to cover bandwidth costs and make a bit of profit.

Imagine a Netflix like service that costs around 5 bucks a month and has every TV show and movie you can imagine with no advertisements. It's professionally designed and easy to navigate, has no flashing banner ads for porn sites and discount viagra, and doesn't install spyware or viruses on your computer.

[Imperator Romani]

In my opinion, the only people that believe copyright laws are ridiculous are the people that don't understand the purpose of copyright laws, which you have laid out.

[chilon]

Dont have time for a long post here but it is a bit misleading to suggest that anyone who opposes the current form of copyright law and the power wielding by industry orgs like the RIAA believes there should be NO copyright law.

The important question is how narrow should copyright protection be applied and for how long copyrights legitimately should last for the most optimal configuration.

Heres some reading material:

Wealth of Networks:
http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks.pdf

Code:
http://codev2.cc/

[Denny Crane!]

So arguments from fear? Not impressed particularly.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Movie companies are not suffering from pirates. People who cant afford to go and see a movie might download it or just wait for it to come out on video. I am not condoning pirated movies though, just saying.

Before TVs the market ratio for Movies in theaters was HUGE... but when TVs came out people stayed home and watched shows in their home. People use to get the news via moving images at movie theaters as well, but that was mostly during WWII.

Records were a huge, huge market before the advent of Mp3 players that shut out CD/record sellers... Like the TV, people stopped buying the CD.

VCRs shut out more of the market ratio for Movie theaters. Same with DVDs. People could wait a couple months later to watch the movie in the comfort of their own home.

Now DVDs are getting shut out of the market from Cable Companies and Dish companies that allow users to receive movies via their box without ever popping in a DVD or CD. This has seen stores like Blockbuster shut down. When I was a kid I use to rent movies from Blockbuster, the place was crowded. I went in about a year ago and it was empty... and the only thing I was renting was a game.

Seems technology is competing here...

[the_mango55]

This isn't about piracy, the industry can survive piracy just like a human can survive a tapeworm.

I'm talking about the idea that copyright law should be abolished and everyone should have the right to all "information"

[Denny Crane!]

This isn't about piracy, the industry can survive piracy just like a human can survive a tapeworm.

I'm talking about the idea that copyright law should be abolished and everyone should have the right to all "information"

But you used an argument from fear and that is it. How very Luddite but not a good argument at all for copyright and IP.

[MathiasOfAthens]

No because someone else could then sell your idea for profit.

[Enemy of the State]

The movie industry in its current form may indeed collapse. So what?

[Ak1980]

Why stop at entertainment copyright law? All patent and design is only information.

[Enemy of the State]

Why stop at entertainment copyright law? All patent and design is only information.

Exactly. Abolish all intellectual "property".

[Astaroth]

Exactly. Abolish all intellectual "property".

And who is then going to finance my medical or scientific research when everyone can just copy and steal my findings anyway?

[Dr. Croccer]

The inherent problem with this debate is that one side is clinging onto an antiquated notion of property and property law which treats it as a finite commodity, which is completely inapplicable to much which is downloaded and shared on the Internet. We need to re-examine it and create a fair balance between the rights of producers and freedom of information.

[Denny Crane!]

And who is then going to finance my medical or scientific research when everyone can just copy and steal my findings anyway?

It could perhaps move towards open or crowd sourcing which would lead to a faster dissemination of useful research and tech.

The inherent problem with this debate is that one side is clinging onto an antiquated notion of property and property law which treats it as a finite commodity, which is completely inapplicable to much which is downloaded and shared on the Internet. We need to re-examine it and create a fair balance between the rights of producers and freedom of information.

Regardless of what the stance is you hold on ip or patents I think this is the only real and sustainable way forward from where we are now.

[Astaroth]

It could perhaps move towards open or crowd sourcing which would lead to a faster dissemination of useful research and tech.

How? Corporations want to make profit. Why spend millions of dollars on developing new products and the likes if it is so much cheaper to just take everything from others? Of course you might lose a few bucks because they might be a tad faster to bring out a product, yet this hardly makes up for the gargantuan costs of development, especially when it comes to advanced technology or medicine.

Now you might believe that corps. will work and invest into development together -- but why would corporation X join that group when it is much easier to just legally (!) take all of the group's information and research for free and legally (!) sell the exact same product for a cheaper price? This might actually make everyone who invests into research go bankrupt because research = high cost = more expensive products = less sales.

[Denny Crane!]

How? Corporations want to make profit. Why spend millions of dollars on developing new products and the likes if it is so much cheaper to just take everything from others? Of course you might lose a few bucks because they might be a tad faster to bring out a product, yet this hardly makes up for the gargantuan costs of development, especially when it comes to advanced technology or medicine.

Now you might believe that corps. will work and invest into development together -- but why would corporation X join that group when it is much easier to just legally (!) take all of the group's information and research for free and legally (!) sell the exact same product for a cheaper price? This might actually make everyone who invests into research go bankrupt because research = high cost = more expensive products = less sales.

There can be an earth without a corporation honest!

[Astaroth]

There can be an earth without a corporation honest!

Maybe. But really, that was quite the cop out!

Anyone who wants to abolish IP and patent rights really needs to explain how financing development and innovation is going to work in the future,

[Dr. Tobias Fünke]

How? Corporations want to make profit. Why spend millions of dollars on developing new products and the likes if it is so much cheaper to just take everything from others? Of course you might lose a few bucks because they might be a tad faster to bring out a product, yet this hardly makes up for the gargantuan costs of development, especially when it comes to advanced technology or medicine.

Now you might believe that corps. will work and invest into development together -- but why would corporation X join that group when it is much easier to just legally (!) take all of the group's information and research for free and legally (!) sell the exact same product for a cheaper price? This might actually make everyone who invests into research go bankrupt because research = high cost = more expensive products = less sales.

Open source generally isn't corporation-oriented. It relies on the idea that people with an interest will work together in their free time, demanding no profit, simply because they enjoy doing it. Rather than charging for it, they'll share their information freely. Rather than a crackpot teenage Communist idea, it actually works pretty well in everything from Linux (which most servers, including the TWC one IIRC, run on) to Wikipedia. Even modding, while not usually not really open source per se, could be considered something along the same vein. People spending hundreds of hours working on something simply because they enjoy doing it, then distributing it for free.

[Astaroth]

Open source generally isn't corporation-oriented. It relies on the idea that people with an interest will work together in their free time, demanding no profit, simply because they enjoy doing it. Rather than charging for it, they'll share their information freely. Rather than a crackpot teenage Communist idea, it actually works pretty well in everything from Linux (which most servers, including the TWC one IIRC, run on) to Wikipedia. Even modding, while not usually not really open source per se, could be considered something along the same vein. People spending hundreds of hours working on something simply because they enjoy doing it, then distributing it for free.

Yes, but there is a massive problem here:

Of course people can work together and create something like Wikipedia where everything just "adds up" and builds on top of each other. But that doesn't apply to many other areas of science in which you actually need highly trained and qualified professionals with a huge budget in order to achieve anything.

Something like Linux simply doesn't compare to advanced medical or technical research. Who, if not corporations, is going to invest millions or even billions into developing new types of medicine?

Again, the problem is not people charging money for their work (you will perhaps find a few volunteers, though probably not enough), the main problem is the huge cost of equipment, tools, studies etc.

[sumskilz]

The inherent problem with this debate is that one side is clinging onto an antiquated notion of property and property law which treats it as a finite commodity, which is completely inapplicable to much which is downloaded and shared on the Internet.

Consumer bases are finite.