Copyright is communism!

[Sajberhippien]

Saw a thread much like this on a Swedish forum, so I'll transfer this discussion here.

A basic law of market economy is that somethings worth is equal to d/s, where d is demand, and s is supply. When it comes to pictures, sound, and ideas, those can be copied an infinite amount of time at (practically) no cost, so the supply is infinite. Thus, the worth of the created thing is equal to d/infinity. It has no real worth.

Despite this, the government is threatening with hard penalties to anyone who doesn't pay the price a salesman wants to put. This isn't really a problem; anyone has the right to put whatever price he or she wants. The problem is when the government tries to stop us from passing on the information.

The government is thus creating an artificial monopoly on certain kinds of information, where a single market actor can set whatever price he wishes on a ware that is worth nothing (according to market economy laws). This reminds of what was done in the Soviet Union, where the government put the prices on among other things bread, forbidding people from selling it for any other price.

The government and the copyright owners use the argument "the creator must get paid for his product". This is bullshit. If I create a bottomless plate I can't expect to get paid for it. It's very strange that copyright-owners should get paid for something worth nothing.
One way to look at this is that the copyright-owners should get paid for their work, not their product. That's a good outlook. However, he should then get paid for the work, not the product. A teacher, for example, gets paid when he teaches. He doesn't get paid whenever someone talks to his student, taking part in the personality the teacher helped create.

The government setting prices and forbidding people to set their own prices is bullshit.

Note, I know that Soviet wasn't communistic, but hey, I've drawn your attention!

[poxpower]

At 12/8/08 11:21 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: Thus, the worth of the created thing is equal to d/infinity. It has no real worth.

You need to create an original. That's what you pay for.

The government is thus creating an artificial monopoly on certain kinds of information,

It's called a patent office.
You can't steal ideas and profit from them. Stealing a song is like stealing an idea without paying for it.

There is such a thing now as the right to use an idea. Wait, "now"? I mean for the last 200 years.

It's very strange that copyright-owners should get paid for something worth nothing.

You mean their time and effort? Well I guess no one should pay an accountant, you can just copy his reports over and over, so I guess he didn't do anything worth money...

That's a good outlook. However, he should then get paid for the work, not the product.

Artists make more money when more people buy their shit. If no one paid for the CDs, where do you imagine the money would come from? A magic corporation with infinite money who just distributes free MP3s to everyone and pays royalties to artists??

The government setting prices and forbidding people to set their own prices is bullshit.

They can set their own prices, what are you talking about? Unless you mean the price of "free" that is "set" by torrent sites.

Anyway, it's complicated. For artists to keep arting, they need money and it has to come from somewhere. Unit sales was a pretty good system until the internet came along. But to imagine that you somehow have a "right" to pay nothing for it because you have found a way to take it without anyone catching you is pretty bad.

As for me, I fully accept that it's "wrong" but I don't really give a damn. If I had a lot more money I would buy shit, but I don't. I consume more media than I could ever hope to buy and if it means all of them going bankrupt, then so be it. If I had the money, I'd support things I like financially ( see, that's the idea here ).

Note, I know that Soviet wasn't communistic, but hey, I've drawn your attention!

oh wait I just realized it was you...
Yes you have high morals, I forgot. You wouldn't stoop so low as to steal things.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 12/8/08 11:21 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: One way to look at this is that the copyright-owners should get paid for their work, not their product. That's a good outlook. However, he should then get paid for the work, not the product. A teacher, for example, gets paid when he teaches. He doesn't get paid whenever someone talks to his student, taking part in the personality the teacher helped create.

While the whole idea of "intellectual property" or claiming ownership of an idea is somewhat absurd, copyright law is pretty much a necessity so that unscrupulous people don't take advantage of the hard work of others. I don't think your example is that great either... a teacher works for an institution, their lesson plans are based on the prescribed course material (not their personal opinions), and they get paid a salary for their time. There's nothing for them to even copyright. Now, how do you expect an independent writer or artist or inventor to get paid for THEIR work? They aren't on anybody's clock but their own, and the eventual product they may produce through their work is the ONLY hope they have of getting paid. Without copyright law they have nothing to call their own except all the hours they've wasted away just for other people to steal or profit off of them.

[Korriken]

someone can steal my ideas for money, I'll just come back after they've made millions and sue em.

[Sajberhippien]

At 12/8/08 11:36 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 12/8/08 11:21 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: Thus, the worth of the created thing is equal to d/infinity. It has no real worth.

You need to create an original. That's what you pay for.

Sure. As long as no-one willing to copy has the ware, it has a value. Once people have the ability and want to copy it, the value falls to nothing.

The government is thus creating an artificial monopoly on certain kinds of information,

It's called a patent office.
You can't steal ideas and profit from them. Stealing a song is like stealing an idea without paying for it.

You can't steal ideas at all, since the idea of theft includes removing the item from it's original owner. So using the term "theft" is a weasel word, much like "murder" is a weasel word in the case of the meat-industry or abortion.

There is such a thing now as the right to use an idea. Wait, "now"? I mean for the last 200 years.

Yes, you have the right to use an idea. Have I said anything about that?

It's very strange that copyright-owners should get paid for something worth nothing.

You mean their time and effort? Well I guess no one should pay an accountant, you can just copy his reports over and over, so I guess he didn't do anything worth money...

Well, it's only worth paying for the first copy, as long as the buyer is willing to sell.

That's a good outlook. However, he should then get paid for the work, not the product.

Artists make more money when more people buy their shit. If no one paid for the CDs, where do you imagine the money would come from? A magic corporation with infinite money who just distributes free MP3s to everyone and pays royalties to artists??

If they can't make a product that stands up for competition without the government restricting concurrance, then it's their fault.

The government setting prices and forbidding people to set their own prices is bullshit.

They can set their own prices, what are you talking about? Unless you mean the price of "free" that is "set" by torrent sites.

That is the price I'm talking about.

Anyway, it's complicated. For artists to keep arting, they need money and it has to come from somewhere. Unit sales was a pretty good system until the internet came along. But to imagine that you somehow have a "right" to pay nothing for it because you have found a way to take it without anyone catching you is pretty bad.

I don't have a right to pay nothing for it because I've found a way to take it without someone catching me, I'm not talking about my rights. I'm talking about the government's and the copyright-holders lack of right to enforce prices not set through the common supply/demand-system.

At 12/8/08 12:36 PM, StephanosGnomon wrote: While the whole idea of "intellectual property" or claiming ownership of an idea is somewhat absurd, copyright law is pretty much a necessity so that unscrupulous people don't take advantage of the hard work of others.

Isn't that the same thing that stalinists claim? There has to be laws against unscrupulous people taking advantage of the working class?

I don't think your example is that great either... a teacher works for an institution, their lesson plans are based on the prescribed course material (not their personal opinions), and they get paid a salary for their time.

The example is great, BECAUSE of the differences.

There's nothing for them to even copyright. Now, how do you expect an independent writer or artist or inventor to get paid for THEIR work?

I don't expect ME to get paid for playing wc3, I do it anyway. I'm not good enough to make money out of it, so if I want to make money, I'll have to change business. See how close those things really are?

A basic rule of the free market is that if your product isn't good enough to hold it on it's own, you won't earn any money. If the artist wants to make money on what he makes, then that is great. He just has to come up with a product that stands. If I wanted to earn my money on music, I would (apart from learning how to play/sing) make a product that has a value that isn't infinitively small, for example live shows (supposing someone wants to pay to see me). If I make a bad product - well too bad for me, it's not like the government should step in and force people who pay what I think is a low price more.

[poxpower]

At 12/8/08 01:37 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: Once people have the ability and want to copy it, the value falls to nothing.

That's one way of seeing it. Another way would be to see that the work is worth something even if no one forces you do pay for it.

since the idea of theft includes removing the item from it's original owner.

That's a matter of opinion.

Yes, you have the right to use an idea. Have I said anything about that?

As in a right that you PAY for. It's been the same with books every since photocopiers have existed. This is not a new dillema. You can't copy a VHS tape either. You're effectively destroying the business even though you don't physically steal tapes or books.

The result is the same. You can wash your hands of responsibility because you "didn't steal anything" but there's not really much difference at the end of the day.

Well, it's only worth paying for the first copy, as long as the buyer is willing to sell.

We live in a society where we agreed that copyright laws have a meaning, a copyright law being meant to not only sell the product but the right to use it.
You can decide that you think the law is stupid as much as you want, but at the end of the day it's not up to just you and if you do get jailed for it, that's too bad. The law wasn't meant to protect YOUR job so apparently you think it's ok to disregard it.
This coming from the guy who sheds a tear for a ham.

If they can't make a product that stands up for competition without the government restricting concurrance, then it's their fault.

The government is there to protect people from thieves. That's tantamount to saying that if I can't own a car that can't be stolen, then it's too bad for me, I shouldn't have bought it in the first place.

The law is there to protect people who want to make a living off their art.

I'm talking about the government's and the copyright-holders lack of right to enforce prices not set through the common supply/demand-system.

Like I said, those are the agreed-upon laws. It doesn't matter if you think there's some divine order where the right of people and governments are written. That's the law RIGHT NOW.

If you want to lobby to change it, go ahead. Until then, you're breaking it.
If you want to change it, you should understand why it exists and who it will hurt if you remove it. Obviously it won't hurt you so you don't really care since you drink from such a deep well of compassion.

I don't see how your argument is different from saying "well the laws of nature are that if you're weak, you should die, so I don't see why the government has the right to tell me, the strong, to not steal from the weak". Welcome to society.

[RubberTrucky]

*Setting prices has the advantage, if well done, of leveling competition.
If a large company can effort to lower their prices to that point where all the other go bankrupt, cause they can't follow, they can later on increase them heavily again, cause theirs no other option left.
Compare it t a poker game where someone can raise all his chips and wins when noone else can follow. It would be a lousy, unfair game.

*copywright: how would you feel if you made a nice picture/movie your proud off and a month later you see someone selling copies of it in his magazine and you can't demand a share.

[JudgeDredd]

At 12/8/08 12:40 PM, Korriken wrote: someone can steal my ideas for money, I'll just come back after they've made millions and sue em.

They'll spend more than you can afford on lawyers keeping the case delayed in court proceedures until you're bankrupt and homeless ..nice try.

[n64kid]

I'm in favor of copyright as long as no one patents something of nature, like their genome.
However, the system can be fair or unfair depending on where you live.

Europe, for example, has a first to file system of patents. This means they can steal someone's idea, patent it first, and get all the credit.

In the United States, there's a first to invent system. It's easy to prove this too with a time stamp or simply mailing the patent to themself.

[Der-Lowe]

It certainly goes against laissez-faire system, in a way that every patent is a government-granted monopoly to the author; the rules of the market do not apply, and production is inefficient.

However, calling it Communism is a stretch, but a good one, a la FUNK.

[Sajberhippien]

At 12/8/08 02:16 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: *Setting prices has the advantage, if well done, of leveling competition.
If a large company can effort to lower their prices to that point where all the other go bankrupt, cause they can't follow, they can later on increase them heavily again, cause theirs no other option left.
Compare it t a poker game where someone can raise all his chips and wins when noone else can follow. It would be a lousy, unfair game.

I'm not talking about setting prices has advantages or not, I'm talking about it being against the very foundation of market economy. Hell, I'm half-way socialist myself, so it's more of a devil's advocate thingy. And when I read the original post on the other forum, I just couldn't help feeling that it would get a lot of good respons here, especially since a US-centered forum has much more capitalists than a swedish one.

*copywright: how would you feel if you made a nice picture/movie your proud off and a month later you see someone selling copies of it in his magazine and you can't demand a share.

This is irrelevant. Feelings doesn't apply to market economy in itself. Also, personally I would feel proud that people think my work is worth paying for, or even worth reading if they got it for free. I do write a lot, so I know excactly how it feels, though not many people have had any want to pay me for my work. Not that I would require them to.
Also, this is the very thing with market economy: If you can't come up with a good enough product, you won't earn any money. Certainly the person selling my work must have added something that I hadn't, be it marketing, a nice cover, or hot chocolate to anyone who buys it. Or simply, lower prices. As such, if his sale is a larger success than mine is, then it's because his work has something that mine doesn't have. Do I have the right to claim THAT money for himself, so HIS work was worth nothing? No, I don't.

[Al6200]

I think people assume too uncritically that weakening the copyright system (namely, so that people are only liable in court for any profits that they make off of the copyrighted material) would damage the economy.

Musicians and producers would still be able to make money if people could copy their music for free.

Consider that MIT (probably the best engineering/science school in the US, if not the world) posts nearly all of its lectures and labs on the internet for free, but still gets students to go to the school. Now you might point out that MIT offers other services to its students than just lectures that allows them to get students, and you'd be right. But bands produce things other than straight MP3s, no? They sell concert tickets, merchandise, etc. It's not unreasonable that churches, universities, or rich people could sponsor music too.

Let's not forget that Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven were all sponsored by the church or the aristocracy or the government. And clearly their music was on par with, if not superior to - our modern musical offering.

[Musician]

At 12/8/08 06:36 PM, Al6200 wrote: Now you might point out that MIT offers other services to its students than just lectures that allows them to get students, and you'd be right. But bands produce things other than straight MP3s, no?

And where exactly do indie game designers fall under your thesis? People who lack the resources to distribute hard copies of their product in stores and rely on online downloads from services like steam? What services can they offer besides the product itself? Without copyright laws, what obligates download services to pay royalties to the developers?

[glomph]

"Copyright Is Communism!"
Thats about the opposite of the truth(In my opinion).
Copyrights/ patents/trademarks grant exclusive rights to use an idea, design or brand within the economy / for profit. Since the idea of communism is communal effort and distribution, there would be no restriction on an infinite recourse and artists should gain funding from the state or whatever. The idea is that a monetary incentive should not be required (eventually) and that people do things for the good of the community not the individual. From each according to their ability, to each according to there need, not to each according to there contribution.

Also (This isn't in conflict really more just an observation) copyright is not really that affective an incentive in media... most successful artists do make more out of concerts and stuff, record labels give measly cuts in profit from CD/MP3 sales. Which is why more and more bands are making available for download there music directly. You wouldn't suggest that without music copyright people would stop making music would you? Think how many people you know who make music(some ALL day) with no or little expectation of profit in return.