Steve Pavlina Possibly Misunderstanding Intellectual Monopoly Abolisionists?

[Kiba]

I reread this article.

http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/200...tual-property/

"While some people take issue with the concept of intellectual property and believe that all content should be free, I don’t count myself among them. In fact, for the most part I consider the anti-copyright fanatics rather juvenile and intellectually immature. Too often their utopian language is merely a hollow shell around the desire to get something for nothing."


I am one of these people who hated the current copyright regime. To thinks that my position is an empty hollow shell for the desire to get something for nothing offend me.

First of all, I am willing to buy concert tickets to see my favorite musicians, and is willing to purchase books that I like. For me, it is not about getting something for nothing. It is about defending certain rights that I believe is at stake. The freedom to share copies with one another and the freedom to create.

My position is my belief on what kind of laws serve humanity the best. I don't think copyright law provide that kind of benefit, especially given my knowledge of the history of copyright and the corruption that come with it. This is also reinforced by economists who done works on intellectual monopoly.


As much as I hate copyright laws, I still employ copyright in my works but not for making money, but rather to give benefits to the public that were deprived of them when they agree to the compromise that is a bad idea in the first place. So I gave them the freedom to copy, modify, and distribute my works without royalty in exchange at the very least attribution and at most responsibility to guarantee that very same freedom to new users.

I still make money, but I am not reliant on the crutch of copyright.

For me, people not playing my games is a much bigger threat than people who copy and distribute my games will ever be.

[Blueskied]

So you are planning to release your game as freeware?

[Kiba]

Originally Posted by Blueskied

So you are planning to release your game as freeware?

I don't release freeware. I never did and never will.

[Keith]

Kiba Possibly Misspelling Intellectual Monopoly Abolisionists?

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

Kiba, if you're making a distinction between Freeware and Free Software, in your reply to BlueSkied it would help to explain it. If he doesn't know about Free Software, then implying it won't help.

[Spiritual]

Kiba stop taking offense by things that aren't even directed towards you and move on with your life. It's not worth your frustration or time....

[Kiba]

Originally Posted by Spiritual

Kiba stop taking offense by things that aren't even directed towards you and move on with your life. It's not worth your frustration or time....

I have issue with the very concept of intellectual monopoly so this article attack my position.

[Blueskied]

I am against monopolies,too - like software patents.
But Steve's article is about intellectual property.
Do you have the right to download a movie for zilch?
Pirates say: Yes, you don't steal any physical good.
On the other hand the company who made the movie invested millions of dollars in the product and thousands of working hours went into it.
So is it fair/ethical to consume the movie without giving back anything?

[Kiba]

Originally Posted by Blueskied

I am against monopolies,too - like software patents.
But Steve's article is about intellectual property.
Do you have the right to download a movie for zilch?
Pirates say: Yes, you don't steal any physical good.
On the other hand the company who made the movie invested millions of dollars in the product and thousands of working hours went into it.
So is it fair/ethical to consume the movie without giving back anything?

Intellectual property is nothing like property at all. It is control over people's copies.

That is different from real physical property.

It is like ford selling you this cars and demand that you can't sell it to anybody or demanding a royalty on the car you sell.

Intellectual "property" is not the equivalence of real physical property. It is considered a limited monopoly.

As for "pirates" downloading movies for zilch, it is completely ethical or even rational of them. They are not stealing, they're merely copying.

The movie makers are only entitled to one thing only. The right to try to make a living. They should have no right to be forcefully be compensated. They must find a business model on which they can support themselves with. I repeat this quote "Your business model is not my problem".

Without the intellectual monopoly laws(with the exception of trademarks), I am confident that people can find other way to make a living from writing books and making movies.

Indeed, we see examples of industries in the history book actually thriving without the copyright regime. The early American book industry for example has printed books without respecting the British authors' copyright. Still, some British authors benefit from this arrangement. It even drive the cost of books down to extremely cheap prices, sometime pennies.

Heck, we see the Italian pharmaceutical industry thriving before the intervention of the Italian supreme court mandating the patent system. The aftereffect, if anything, may actually damage innovation.

[Blueskied]

Originally Posted by Kiba

Without the intellectual monopoly laws(with the exception of trademarks), I am confident that people can find other way to make a living from writing books and making movies.

Hm...Stuffing them full of advertisement? You really think this will bring quality and innovation?
YouTube - David Lynch on Product Placement

[Kiba]

Originally Posted by Blueskied

Hm...Stuffing them full of advertisement? You really think this will bring quality and innovation?
YouTube - David Lynch on Product Placement

I can't watch it, I don't have my gnash flash plugin installed.

That is one business model. There may be other business models that are more workable.

One such ideas that may be viable is to sell movie merchandises, or offer the movie to movie theaters that want their hand on the movie first.

Another idea is that you could upload your movies to flash video site that want your movie first and is willing to arrange you some sort of revenue sharing plan.

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by Kiba

They are not stealing, they're merely copying.

Copying IS stealing (whether or not downloading is considered copying, depends on the laws that are applicable to you). Copyright laws were introduced to prohibit the copying of original works of art without permission from and compensation for the author(s).

I am glad there is such a thing, because I wouldn't be able to make a living otherwise. In both music and games, which are the means by which I earn a living, copyright is what keeps the business as a whole running. If copying were free and legal, a lot of us would be out of a job.

The problem is not copyright per se. People will pay for reliable digital delivery of content. The iTunes Store has proven that. The problem is that a lot of the 'big boys' in entertainment are so busy harassing their customers that they neglect to do what businesses ought to be doing: competing by offering better quality, better service or better pricing.

[Kiba]

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

Copying IS stealing (whether or not downloading is considered copying, depends on the laws that are applicable to you). Copyright laws were introduced to prohibit the copying of original works of art without permission from and compensation for the author(s).

I am glad there is such a thing, because I wouldn't be able to make a living otherwise. In both music and games, which are the means by which I earn a living, copyright is what keeps the business as a whole running. If copying were free and legal, a lot of us would be out of a job.

The problem is not copyright per se. People will pay for reliable digital delivery of content. The iTunes Store has proven that. The problem is that a lot of the 'big boys' in entertainment are so busy harassing their customers that they neglect to do what businesses ought to be doing: competing by offering better quality, better service or better pricing.

Copying is not stealing, whether you want to admit it or not. It is a different crime. Stealing is the depreviation of one's goods. Copying is not.

It can be argued that copying is a bad thing, but that depend on your perspective.

From my perspective, copying is not a bad thing. It is critical to building my future livelihood. I see it as a land of opportunity that can be used to increase demand for my services.

To you, it is a bad thing, because it disallow you to build artificial scarcity. Thus, when artificial scarcity disappear, your source of livelihood may also suffer.

You see this game as a zero sum game. I see this game as a non-zero sum game. I see distributors as allies and the so called freeloaders as possible source of future customers and even salesmen and promoters.

People are paying for iTunes for convenience. It probably have nothing to do with copyright laws.

As for the RIAA/MPAA and the big guys, I will not argue with you on this.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

Copying IS stealing (whether or not downloading is considered copying, depends on the laws that are applicable to you). Copyright laws were introduced to prohibit the copying of original works of art without permission from and compensation for the author(s).

"A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it".

Intellectual Property infringement may or may not be criminal, or immoral or inappropriate. But it's definitely not theft because theft requires you to deprive the owner of the property. Intellectual Property infringement is transfer, not duplication.

I tend to agree with Kiba that analogy to physical property is a poor basis for information rights laws.

P.S. Actually, viewing something online is automatically copying it, because a copy of the text (or whatever) has to be downloaded to your browser before you can view it.

[Blueskied]

Originally Posted by Kiba

Thus, when artificial scarcity disappear, your source of livelihood may also suffer.

Nice term: artificial scarcity. The economic term for it would be "demand" i guess. Without demand = no money.

Originally Posted by Kiba

I see distributors as allies and the so called freeloaders as possible source of future customers and even salesmen and promoters.

Prepare for a rude awakening!

[wulph]

Originally Posted by Kiba

It is like ford selling you this cars and demand that you can't sell it to anybody or demanding a royalty on the car you sell.

Your analogy fails.

"Pirating" is more like making copies of Ford cars, that look and function exactly like Ford cars, and giving them away/selling them to your global network of "friends."

This practice is very much illegal, even though you're not stealing cars from Ford. You're stealing their intellectual property -- the design of the vehicle. It's enforced through the patent and trademark systems.

I agree with you that the system is flawed, but your solution hasn't convinced me.

[Kiba]

Originally Posted by Blueskied

Nice term: artificial scarcity. The economic term for it would be "demand" i guess. Without demand = no money.

Prepare for a rude awakening!

Artificial scarcity is a term used to denote restraining supply of a given resource. For example, being able to shut down your competitors from distributing goods they copied from you.

If there is a rude awakening, I don't know what it is.

Very well, you may distribute my work or modify it, or brand it under a different name, but you still have to follow the copyright term of GPLv3. I insist that you do several things for users you distributed to.

[Kiba]

Originally Posted by wulph

Your analogy fails.

"Pirating" is more like making copies of Ford cars, that look and function exactly like Ford cars, and giving them away/selling them to your global network of "friends."

This practice is very much illegal, even though you're not stealing cars from Ford. You're stealing their intellectual property -- the design of the vehicle. It's enforced through the patent and trademark systems.

I agree with you that the system is flawed, but your solution hasn't convinced me.

I am not aware that it is illegal to have an exact replica of the vehicle you copied.

However this analogy is meant to illustrate the non equivalence of intellectual monopoly and property.

[wulph]

Originally Posted by Kiba

Very well, you may distribute my work or modify it, or brand it under a different name, but you still have to follow the copyright term of GPLv3. I insist that you do several things for users you distributed to.

I'm glad you've chosen to contribute to the free software community and I wish you the best of success in bringing your products to the open market!

To the skeptics: The open software model has already proven to be sustainable. Linux, MySQL, Apache, and many others have found innovative ways to generate revenue.

[Parthon]

Simply we have two teams on the subject: Those that believe that copying is not stealing and want either stuff for free or to distribute their own content for free. Then you have those that believe that they should get paid for their hard work and rewarded just like anyone would if they were working a more physical job. The record companies are the extremists of the second group and the anti-copyright activists are the extremists of the first.

I'm in the second group. If an artist makes a great work they should get paid for it. If they want to distribute it freely, that's great too! What I hate however is the draconian methods the record companies are using to ensure they are making money from someone elses services, then pretend they are offering that person something great. A record contract with a major company brings lots of publicity so you are well known, for about a year. They sell your music, make loads of money, give you a bit then when you aren't selling they throw you out for someone new. This goes for movies and art as well.

As for artists, Cleaners get paid to clean. Hairdressers get paid to cut hair. Taxi drivers get paid to drive taxis. Why can't artists get paid to create art? I think it's the delivery strategy that's fundamentally flawed, it's too cumbersome and too expensive, it's just easier and cheaper to pirate. Piracy then is a societal backlash to an outdated model. It this model that needs to be reevaluated.

Piracy becomes more serious when you consider scientists are also artists. They are working to create new technology. They want to be rewarded for their hard work. They went to university which cost them thosands of dollars in order to work as a scientist. If they didn't get paid for it there would be no scientists and if that were the case there would be no progress.

The major problem with creating something, is that we haven't figured out a way to get paid for it before we create it so we need to find a way of getting paid after. This is in the form of protecting works, then distributing them in the right way which earns a living for the creator. Until we can change this model, and pay creators differently, piracy will be illegal.

In the end though many artists wouldn't do what they do if they couldn't get paid for it. Steve wouldn't write blog articles on self development and we wouldn't have these forums to debate this kind of stuff. We wouldn't have the wealth of modern music that we currently have, and without patents we probably wouldn't have all the great technology we are currently using.

[Kiba]

Originally Posted by wulph

I'm glad you've chosen to contribute to the free software community and I wish you the best of success in bringing your products to the open market!

To the skeptics: The open software model has already proven to be sustainable. Linux, MySQL, Apache, and many others have found innovative ways to generate revenue.

It is nice to see someone thanking my generosity even when I have very selfish and greedy motives.

[Kiba]

Originally Posted by Parthon

Simply we have two teams on the subject: Those that believe that copying is not stealing and want either stuff for free or to distribute their own content for free. Then you have those that believe that they should get paid for their hard work and rewarded just like anyone would if they were working a more physical job. The record companies are the extremists of the second group and the anti-copyright activists are the extremists of the first.

Once again, my position is not about price, but rather freedom. I don't care if you try to distribute games for 5 dollars a pop. I wouldn't oppose it.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Parthon

Simply we have two teams on the subject: Those that believe that copying is not stealing and want either stuff for free or to distribute their own content for free. Then you have those that believe that they should get paid for their hard work and rewarded just like anyone would if they were working a more physical job.

Nope, that's a gross oversimplification. For example, I think that artists should get paid for their work, but that it's ludicrous to use a legal model based on the analogy of physical property. (eg. Piracy is not theft, because the owner does not lose use of the "property").

Originally Posted by Parthon

As for artists, Cleaners get paid to clean. Hairdressers get paid to cut hair. Taxi drivers get paid to drive taxis. Why can't artists get paid to create art?

The analogy doesn't hold up here, either - those professions are being paid for delivering a one-use service. Information is its own thing, neither good nor service.

Originally Posted by Kiba

Artificial scarcity is a term used to denote restraining supply of a given resource.

Yup, it's not just demand - it's driving up demand by artificially restricting a resource. Perhaps the worst example of this was during the Depression when massive amounts of food were destroyed to keep the sale price high, while millions were starving. Not only is this immoral it's contrary to the ideas underlying capitalism.

P.S. Kiba, you can re-edit your posts using the "Edit" button on them. You don't need to create a second post.

[RTF671]

Originally Posted by Kiba

Copying is not stealing, whether you want to admit it or not. It is a different crime. Stealing is the depreviation of one's goods. Copying is not.

Copying is stealing, while the information is not removed from the original owner, compensation for his or her work is (unless its free).

However, copying is only stealing if the original was not free. If it was, then there is no problem. Information is interesting because it can be copied without expending any new resources (other than storage of course) where material objects need to be manufactured.

By copying something that cost something, you may have not stolen the information but you have stolen the money that is due to them. We cannot just make everything free that is intellectual. That would structurally unemploy millions and send the whole world into a massive depression and eventual dark age. Our current economic system relies on the fact that people get paid for their services.

But if you want to give away your software then thats wonderful! You certainly have to the right to give it away or charge for it. But I also assume that you have some other source of income to support yourself. It would be a pity if my favorite musicians were to die because they couldn't get food to eat because no one paid them for their work
But I think they would quit first.

What do you guys think?

[Kiba]

Originally Posted by RTF671

Copying is stealing, while the information is not removed from the original owner, compensation for his or her work is (unless its free).

However, copying is only stealing if the original was not free. If it was, then there is no problem. Information is interesting because it can be copied without expending any new resources (other than storage of course) where material objects need to be manufactured.

By copying something that cost something, you may have not stolen the information but you have stolen the money that is due to them. We cannot just make everything free that is intellectual. That would structurally unemploy millions and send the whole world into a massive depression and eventual dark age. Our current economic system relies on the fact that people get paid for their services.

But if you want to give away your software then thats wonderful! You certainly have to the right to give it away or charge for it. But I also assume that you have some other source of income to support yourself. It would be a pity if my favorite musicians were to die because they couldn't get food to eat because no one paid them for their work
But I think they would quit first.

What do you guys think?

Wrong, copying is copying. It is not stealing, irregardless of the potential opportunity loss.

Copying is also a non-zero sum game event. There is a study that said file sharing may be correlated with increasing sales in music.

Also, an illegal fan fiction markets thrive for official works in the manga world. It actually help media companies out a lot so these companies often quietly overlook them.

Sometime, a sale is not lost, but rather gained.

About giving away softwares, I may be happy to give them out to users but it doesn't mean that I dislike the right to charge for a product. In fact, I will happily hold the right to sell softwares. But I do not support the attempt to quash other distributors from selling or giving away the softwares.

The reason I give out softwares these days is that it is impractical in today's market. Time changes. If I were a game programmer in the 1970s making free games, I will be happy to charge you a leg and an arm if you want to buy my game.

With today's internet, the free software world already moved on to different business models.

I will continue to repeat this and this again until it become loud and clear:

It is not about prices that we're talking about. It is about freedom. That mean the freedom to distribute at any prices one wishes, modify as one wishes, and more.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by RTF671

Copying is stealing, while the information is not removed from the original owner, compensation for his or her work is (unless its free).

Part of the definition of theft is that the owner is deprived of their property. Period.

Like I said, you can argue that copyright infringement is wrong and a bad thing, but you can't argue that it's theft because it just isn't.

BTW, the compensation issue isn't as clear cut as you make it seem, either. Hypothetically:
Say an artist brings out a CD that I kinda like but wouldn't be willing to pay for. I take a copy. Have I deprived him of income? I'd say no - he gets the exact same $0 from me that he would have if I hadn't copied the CD.

Further, as Kiba points out, what if copyright infringement actually increases sales? Say, in the case of an artist who noone's heard of. Then they become popular on the file sharing networks and the CDs start selling (a lot of people use filesharing to trial music, then buy the CD if they like it).

[Kiba]

I would like to give you educational materials for debate fodder before I go to sleep..

These items I am about to lists are viewpoints that I used to support my viewpoints.

ECONOMIC:
Against Intellectual Monopoly
Techdirt's Grand Unified Theory on the Economic of Free
POLITICAL
The Libertarian Case against Intellectual Property

If you can read all of this in one night, I applause your effort.
This is the listing I have off the top of my head. There may be more, I don't know.

[Parthon]

Are we trying to uphold the creator's right to distrubute freely or the pirate's right to distribute as he wishes against the creator's wishes?

If I lived in a society which had no copyright laws, I wouldn't create anything. Distributers would just take it, spread it around and not pay for a thing. There would be the few that would pay for it, but if it was socially acceptable not to, there would be far fewer willing to pay, and therefore a great loss of income.

While I agree that the idea of free information is a very noble one and it greatly improves the wealth in a society, without artists and creators getting paid for it, nothing would be created. Even after reading those, I cannot see how completly free distribution would help them earn a living. Partially free and piracy, yes but not fully free distribution. There's just no incentive for the average greedy person. A free information economy only becomes viable when people are rewarded for their contribution.

I'm definately on the side of the artists here. They should be the ones to say how their works should be controlled, as they are the ones that created it. If they want it free to use, great! If they don't, great! It's their choice. If you don't like it, go create something of your own. I'm still wondering how an artist losing the rights to their own work would be good for the artist, when anyone can copy and distribute the results without a second thought for the creator.

Lastly: I don't argue that by definition copying is stealing, but by LAW it is, and will be for the significant future.

Edit: I also would urge all artists to distribute freely as well as, like people have said, there is a lot of value for them that they don't see in distributing content that costs nothing to reproduce over and over. Find a way to make money from giving away free value and make the entire world a richer place without the scarcity nonsense of copyright that Kiba hates so much. In the end, it's really in the artist's hands here. I believe that an artist should keep rights, but use them fairly. If more artists do it, perhaps it will become the norm.

[Brutha]

Piracy becomes more serious when you consider scientists are also artists. They are working to create new technology. They want to be rewarded for their hard work. They went to university which cost them thosands of dollars in order to work as a scientist. If they didn't get paid for it there would be no scientists and if that were the case there would be no progress.

A lot of scientists in fact do publish their work in scientific journals which lets everyone use the information.

Lastly: I don't argue that by definition copying is stealing, but by LAW it is, and will be for the significant future.

While it is illegal by law the crime is something like copyright infringement.

[Kiba]

Originally Posted by Parthon

Are we trying to uphold the creator's right to distrubute freely or the pirate's right to distribute as he wishes against the creator's wishes?

If I lived in a society which had no copyright laws, I wouldn't create anything. Distributers would just take it, spread it around and not pay for a thing. There would be the few that would pay for it, but if it was socially acceptable not to, there would be far fewer willing to pay, and therefore a great loss of income.

While I agree that the idea of free information is a very noble one and it greatly improves the wealth in a society, without artists and creators getting paid for it, nothing would be created. Even after reading those, I cannot see how completly free distribution would help them earn a living. Partially free and piracy, yes but not fully free distribution. There's just no incentive for the average greedy person. A free information economy only becomes viable when people are rewarded for their contribution.

I'm definately on the side of the artists here. They should be the ones to say how their works should be controlled, as they are the ones that created it. If they want it free to use, great! If they don't, great! It's their choice. If you don't like it, go create something of your own. I'm still wondering how an artist losing the rights to their own work would be good for the artist, when anyone can copy and distribute the results without a second thought for the creator.

Lastly: I don't argue that by definition copying is stealing, but by LAW it is, and will be for the significant future.

Edit: I also would urge all artists to distribute freely as well as, like people have said, there is a lot of value for them that they don't see in distributing content that costs nothing to reproduce over and over. Find a way to make money from giving away free value and make the entire world a richer place without the scarcity nonsense of copyright that Kiba hates so much. In the end, it's really in the artist's hands here. I believe that an artist should keep rights, but use them fairly. If more artists do it, perhaps it will become the norm.

Tell that to free software creators and big corporations who specialize in free software.(Such as redhat)

In fact, redhat's products are sometime rebranded by competitors and other 3rd party and given away for free or at zero cost. They still make more money than their last quarter.

Like I say, copying is a non-zero sum game event. Rather than hurting one's business, it may actually increase business.

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by Kiba

Copying is not stealing, whether you want to admit it or not. It is a different crime. Stealing is the depreviation of one's goods. Copying is not.

Fair enough, let's not get stuck in semantics here. However you want to call it, the bottom line is that you when you download a movie for free you are not paying anything to the original creators.

I think it is only fair to let the original creators decide whether or not they are okay with that. And that is EXACTLY what the copyright laws mean to accomplish.

From my perspective, copying is not a bad thing. It is critical to building my future livelihood. I see it as a land of opportunity that can be used to increase demand for my services.

I really hope this is how it works for you.

My experience with music is that offering it up for free is great for getting a ton of downloads, but REALLY bad for business. My band's last CD was downloaded roughly 10,000 times from our site alone, yet only a handful of copies were sold.

Truth is, with music at least, once it is on your iPod you feel like you own it, whether you paid for it or not. You are not coming back to the store later to pay some money after the fact. Hence, the businessman in me says I have one chance to make a buck of you when you are first downloading my stuff. So, I'll give you a free sample and nothing more.

To you, it is a bad thing, because it disallow you to build artificial scarcity. Thus, when artificial scarcity disappear, your source of livelihood may also suffer.

This is such nonsense. There is no artificial scarcity of my product. As long as my server is up and running, you can download fresh copies of my music - just not for free.

Or are you saying that just because my supply cannot run out, my product really should be free? If that is your argument, would you mind telling me how I am supposed to recuperate the costs of creating my product?

You see this game as a zero sum game. I see this game as a non-zero sum game. I see distributors as allies and the so called freeloaders as possible source of future customers and even salesmen and promoters.

Again, I hope this is how it works for you.

I am not opposed to people handing out copies of my CDs to their friends, so they can check out my music. In fact, I grateful to fans for doing that, because they are doing my job of introducing people to my music!

I don't even mind the obsessive-compulsive collectors who never listen to music but want to have every last song ever made on their iPod, just so they can show off the size of their 'thing'.

But don't go calling yourself a fan when you listen to my music regularly and are only downloading my next album through p2p because you are too cheap to hand me a couple of bucks for it.