Intellectual Property- too much or not enough

[welsh]

Ok, I've not been a fan of bootleg CDs or file-sharing based on the notion that this is really just theft and bad for the industry.

But I am also not keen on a movie, music or video industry that would quash any idea merely because it has already gotten the rights to a similar idea.

Likewise, I don't like the idea of a pharmaceutical that figures out a cure to an incurable disease holding out more money for the treatment and increasing it's profits while people die for want of ability to pay a bill. Yet, without allowing the pharmaceutical to make a profit, why would it go into business in the first place?

Can there be a balance between the approaches? Or maybe should intellectual property be a bit more relaxed.

Copyright and the law

Rip. Mix. Burn.

Media companies are jubilant at a Supreme Court judgment, but Congress should take them on

AS USUAL, America's Supreme Court ended its annual term this week by delivering a clutch of controversial decisions. The one that caught the attention of businessmen, and plenty of music lovers, was a ruling concerning the rampant downloading of free music from the internet.

Nine elderly judges might have been forgiven for finding the entire subject somewhat baffling. In fact, their lengthy written decisions on the case betray an intense interest, as well as a great deal of knowledge. Moreover, they struck what looks like the best available balance under current laws between the claims of media firms, which are battling massive infringements of their copyrights, and tech firms, which are keen to keep the doors to innovation wide open.

ANd let's be honest. If you didn't have two major industries with different interests battling over this issue, it probably wouldn't have gotten to the court's interest.

This case is only the latest episode in a long-running battle between media and technology companies. In 1984, in a case involving Sony's Betamax video recorder, the Supreme Court ruled that technology firms are not liable if their users infringe copyright, provided the device is “capable of substantial non-infringing uses”. For two decades, this served as a green light for innovations. Apple's iTunes, the legal offspring of illegal internet file-sharing, is among the happy results. But lately, things have turned against the techies. In 2000, a California court shut down Napster, a distributor of peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing software. It had, the court decided, failed to stop copyright violations (though the firm relaunched as a legal online-music retailer).

In its ruling this week, the court unanimously took the view that two other P2P firms, Grokster and StreamCast, could be held liable if they encourage users to infringe copyrights. The vast majority of content that is swapped using their software infringes copyrights, which media firms say eats into their sales. Although the software firms argued they should not be responsible for their customers' actions, the court found that they could be sued if they actually encouraged the infringement, and said that there was evidence that they had done so. On the other hand, the court did not go as far as media firms demanded: they wanted virtually any new technology to be vulnerable to legal action if it allowed any copyright infringement at all.

Ok, so here comes the bit- ifa company encourages users to act illegally- is that enough?

Or does a company have to know that the item would probably be used for some illegal actions?

That's a tough one to sort out.

Ok, sorry to sneak a gun thread into this, but is this suggesting that if a gun company encourages criminals to buy their guns, the industry could otherwise be responsible?

Turning customers into pirates
Both the entertainment and technology industries have legitimate arguments. Media firms should be able to protect their copyrights. And without any copyright protection of digital content, they may be correct that new high quality content is likely to dry up (along with much of their business). Yet tech and electronics firms are also correct that holding back new technology, merely because it interferes with media firms' established business models, stifles innovation and is an unjustified restraint of commerce. The music industry is only now embracing online sales (and even experimenting itself with P2P) because rampant piracy has demonstrated what consumers really want, and forced these firms to respond.

Indeed, in that sense is the practice of consumers (be it legal or not) important for exploring the failures of market strategies?

And remember, just because it's illegal doesn't necessarily make it immoral. But is file-sharing stealing?

The Supreme Court tried to steer a middle path between these claims, and did a reasonable job. But the outcome of the case is nevertheless unsatisfactory. That's not the court's fault. It was struggling to apply a copyright law which has grown worse than anachronistic in the digital age. That's something Congress needs to remedy.

In America, the length of copyright protection has increased enormously over the past century, from around 28 years to as much as 95 years. The same trend can be seen in other countries. In June Britain signalled that it may extend its copyright term from 50 years to around 90 years.

A bit too long? If an inventor is to enjoy the fruits of his work, should it be for a life-time or for a reasonable period? In fact, doesn't the longer you hold a copyright suggest that you are limit the opportunities of competitors from creating new and better products?

This makes no sense. Copyright was originally intended to encourage publication by granting publishers a temporary monopoly on works so they could earn a return on their investment. But the internet and new digital technologies have made the publication and distribution of works much easier and cheaper. Publishers should therefore need fewer, not more, property rights to protect their investment. Technology has tipped the balance in favour of the public domain.

So legally, the publisher is getting more protection and more profits while technology is threatening that profit margin. How much profit is enough?

A first, useful step would be a drastic reduction of copyright back to its original terms—14 years, renewable once. This should provide media firms plenty of chance to earn profits, and consumers plenty of opportunity to rip, mix, burn their back catalogues without breaking the law. The Supreme Court has somewhat reluctantly clipped the wings of copyright pirates; it is time for Congress to do the same to the copyright incumbents.

What do you think?

 

[Jovan]

I won't reply directly to the quotings, but throughout the 'evolution' of electronics (radio, jukebox, etc).. we have seen shitbags like RIAA step up and keep on copyrighting and protecting things. Sad to say, none of these 'evolutions' affected the market, selling and purchase of "intellectual property". With each new thing coming out, they always kept saying "this is the one", but quite frankly, nothing has really happened.

People have the technology to use cam corders to record movies in theatres, barely any do it. What they don't see, I suppose, is that they would "satisfy" more people if they actually made something damn good. Sure, you would still have some pirates, but you wouldn't have people like me getting pissed off at clones of games and ending up on a bit torrent site.

 

[c0ldst33ltrs4u]

A bit too long? If an inventor is to enjoy the fruits of his work, should it be for a life-time or for a reasonable period? In fact, doesn't the longer you hold a copyright suggest that you are limit the opportunities of competitors from creating new and better products?

14 years should be a long enough period for the inventor/creator of a certain product to harvest the fruits of his work, if that product worth something... Also if a product is too expensive is piracy somewhat justified? Small example: an Microsoft Office 2003 pro costs about 450 $ and a Windows XP about 250 $while the average income is around 200$, and with 200 one can barely get by in Bucharest. So, if I can't afford it but I need it is it somewhat justified to "borrow" one?

 

[Ivy Mike]

As with most debates about intellectual property, there are no clear answers to be had. Really. The discussion about IP rights are usually two separate discussion woven into one: a) The need for agents to gain enough profit to cover their costs (this includes artist who want to make a living on making music, for example), and b) the right to own ideas/patterns/abstractions.

Of course the are related, but they are two separate discussions. Few people would dream of not letting an artist survive on his or hers talent, but this doesn't mean that an artist should have the right to copyright every pattern in his or her work. Why? Because if effectively hinders many, many other artist to publish their work.

ANd let's be honest. If you didn't have two major industries with different interests battling over this issue, it probably wouldn't have gotten to the court's interest.

Indeed. What it all comes down to is profit. The file sharing networks make a profit on peoples desire to download music. Now, my view on file sharing is pretty liberal, but IF companies like Grokster and StreamCast make people pay for downloading music that isn't freely given to them by the artists I what they're doing is clearly wrong. However, if a P2P network operates without subscription fees (such as bittorrent) I don't see anything inherently wrong with them. The reason is that file sharing isn't stealing, like many business supported copyright organizations would have you belive, a better term would be copying. If I break into your house and take your TV, I would be stealing. If I make a copy of a recipe you've made, and you retain the original, I'm not stealing since you haven't lost anything.

What it all comes down to is that much of the business world operates within an economic mindset where they consider file sharing to lower their profit. The reasoning behind it goes like this: If everyone who copied music would've bought the songs/albums instead their profit would've been much higher, therefore they are "loosing" profit - relatively speaking. Whether or not this has any bearing on reality is debatable. I'd say that most of the people who download music, wouldn't buy the albums anyway. An interesting fact I've heard, is that people who actively share and download music/movies etc, also buys more music/movies compared to those who don't.

Turning customers into pirates
Both the entertainment and technology industries have legitimate arguments. Media firms should be able to protect their copyrights. And without any copyright protection of digital content, they may be correct that new high quality content is likely to dry up (along with much of their business). Yet tech and electronics firms are also correct that holding back new technology, merely because it interferes with media firms' established business models, stifles innovation and is an unjustified restraint of commerce. The music industry is only now embracing online sales (and even experimenting itself with P2P) because rampant piracy has demonstrated what consumers really want, and forced these firms to respond.

Indeed, in that sense is the practice of consumers (be it legal or not) important for exploring the failures of market strategies?

I would say that it's essential. The consumers (you and me) are the market in this case. What we see here is an attempt by companies to punish consumers for not playing by their rules. Take this example: Due to rampant copying of certain albums, the record industry in Sweden decided to RAISE the price of CD:s. Makes sense? No, if you follow the logic of the common man. Yes, obviously, if you follow the logic of the record industry.

A first, useful step would be a drastic reduction of copyright back to its original terms—14 years, renewable once. This should provide media firms plenty of chance to earn profits, and consumers plenty of opportunity to rip, mix, burn their back catalogues without breaking the law. The Supreme Court has somewhat reluctantly clipped the wings of copyright pirates; it is time for Congress to do the same to the copyright incumbents.

What do you think?

I agree. But there should be better solutions for intellectual property, the Creative Commons might be that solution.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

I won't get into this discussion as I have already stated my opinion on intellectual property and why I disagree with it in a number of threads on this very forum. I will, however, address this point:

14 years should be a long enough period for the inventor/creator of a certain product to harvest the fruits of his work, if that product worth something... Also if a product is too expensive is piracy somewhat justified? Small example: an Microsoft Office 2003 pro costs about 450 $ and a Windows XP about 250 $while the average income is around 200$, and with 200 one can barely get by in Bucharest. So, if I can't afford it but I need it is it somewhat justified to "borrow" one?

Two words - open source. Unlike art and entertainment, an applicatory product subject to IP (such as computer programs) can always have an affordable alternative with similar functionality. Therefore, bitching about high prices of software applications like Office or Windows is somewhat asinine, as more than adequate alternatives exist in form of open source software. Find Windows XP too expensive? Use one of dozens of Linux distributions. Don't like the price tag on MS Office? Open Office is free and just as good. Developing a game, but can't afford to license Unreal engine? No problem, Crystal Space is there and it's free. Want to maintain a http server, but find Microsoft IIS too expensive? No problem, Apache comes free and is just as good, if not better. Annoyed by atrocious price tags on Adobe Photoshop? Consider GIMP, its open-source alternative. See, you can get software for just about any use at no cost if you look hard enough.

 

[Brahmin]

Then there is Cube, an open source 3D Serious Sam/Doom/Quake lookalike. IanOut is another nice engine.

I think that 90 years is ridiculous, it defies the point of copyright and ipp, I believe that 14 years is more than enough. They are changing it too 90 years to try and combat the pirates, but they fail to realise that this only encourages them. I wish the US and UK governments actually took an interest in sociolagy.

 

[c0ldst33ltrs4u]

See, you can get software for just about any use at no cost if you look hard enough.

Good point. But I was wondering why the companies who produce these goods don't lower prices if their shit doesn't sell... Then again Mike gave a nice example and proved that at least some of those guys sit on their heads and think with their asses .

 

[Big T]

I think that 90 years is ridiculous, it defies the point of copyright and ipp, I believe that 14 years is more than enough.

I think it really should differ between formats. Music, for instance (and literature), can remain intresting and unique for (hundreds?) many years after conception, but games become mostly obsolete after "14 years", perhaps even much quicker.

This may well change one game development reaches a point where technological development does not influence the IP of games. Ie. once game makers begin to make games based on other than 1337 graphics and new gadgets and gizmos.

 

[Brahmin]

I suppose you are right.. I wouldn't cheat Pink Floyd out of their money and some of their music is more than 35 years old.

 

[c0ldst33ltrs4u]

I think it really should differ between formats. Music, for instance (and literature), can remain intresting and unique for (hundreds?)

True, music can remain interesting for hundreds of years but will the artist live that long? And after 14 years the artist should come up with something new... it's not like one album/song is going to be all he creates in all his life... Besides, a good band/artist come up with a new album every 1 or 2 years so 14 years per album is more than enough.
And the income of a band/artist doesn't resume to the number of albums sold, they go on tours and I think that's where the money really comes from. At least that is what I think...

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

Unless the band is called Flock of Seagulls.

 

[Kilus]

I think it really should differ between formats. Music, for instance (and literature), can remain intresting and unique for (hundreds?) many years after conception, but games become mostly obsolete after "14 years", perhaps even much quicker.

I'm pretty sure space invaders is more then 14 years old, same with pong and tetris.

 

[SimpleMinded]

But how many people would go out and buy pong or space invaders?

 

[Kilus]

Heaps. I think there were rerelease on the playstation and again on playstation 2 of space invaders and each have been release on those namco plug and play things, plus parts of heaps of classic games packs.

 

[calculon000]

If I pirated windows 95 right now, do you think that Microsoft would lose any money from the loss of a 10-year-old piece of software?

In my opinion, copyrights for computer software should be 7 years, renewable once. Most games made on or before 1998 aren't really making anyone any money anymore and if Blizzard really wants to renew Starcraft they can, but having a copyright on it past 2012 is kind of ridiculous.

You can find out when all you favorite games were released at Moby games

Hare are some games made on or before 1991:
Battletoads
Bomberman
Castle of Dr. Brain
Contra (1991)
Duke Nukem
Gobliiins
Holiday Lemmings
Leisure Suit Larry 1 through 5
Marble Madness
The Secret of Monkey Island (Monkey Island 1)
Simcity 1
Scorched Earth
Zero Wing

 

[Lukus]

I think that stealing IP should remain illegal, much like I think that buying alcohol under the age of 18 should be illegal.

I have enjoyed 'my share' of pirated programs/games/music etc, but in no way do I find it morally defendable - I have stolen, and I admit it. Why have I stolen? It pretty much boils down to: because I could get away with it. Factors like that I didn't steal from an individual or a small business do play in of course - it's not like I would stick someone up on the street - but that petty fact doesn't make my action right. Much like I overspeed deliberately on the freeway when I'm driving where I know the road (and where the potential police control spots are) it doesn't mean that just because I also wouldn't rob a bank I'm a perfect law abiding citizen. Like, duh.

"I wouldn't have bought this anyway so I'm not stealing!"/"It's old and should be free!" are fucked up arguments. Not that I am one to preach about moral, but you who steal out there; at least fucking admit it instead of trying to justify it when you probably know that you're breaking the law, and it's like, not good for society when people break the law (not that the laws apply to you). "The law is stupid!!1" - so, move to a country that suits you better, become an outcast from society, or shut up and swallow. Admittedly, just because something is illegal does not make it immoral by default, though my own little definition of what 'moral' is says so (not that I follow it very strictly). Since we are members of our various societies by choice (taking for granted that everyone here is old enough to understand that he/she doesn't have to stick around, pay his taxes and refrain from raping chicks no matter how hawt they may be), we should also abide by all the laws. Yet, quite naturally, most of us don't, like me for instance. Not that I have a point or anything, but I really don't feel like erasing all this after having typed it.

after 14 years the artist should come up with something new... it's not like one album/song is going to be all he creates in all his life... Besides, a good band/artist come up with a new album every 1 or 2 years so 14 years per album is more than enough.
And the income of a band/artist doesn't resume to the number of albums sold, they go on tours and I think that's where the money really comes from. At least that is what I think...

So that justifies your thefts? That the artist "should come up with something new", and he/she's "rich enough already"? OK.

I know that if I were ever to get some songs on the market, I would want every fucking single penny that I could possibly squirm from the consuming mob. I also enjoy free music that others have worked for a living to produce. Conclusion? Don't use me for your moral references.

 

[Hovercar Madness]

I think that stealing IP should remain illegal

"The law is stupid!!1" - so, move to a country that suits you better, become an outcast from society, or shut up and swallow

You give your opinion on the subject only to say this opinion means nothing afterwards. Unless ofcourse you only think an opinion in the affirmative matters. Which is pretty silly, mind you.

Though I'd normally just say "property is theft" and be done with it, this whole IP thing is really quite interesting. We've already found clear rules for property of physical objects quite some time ago, and it looks like at last we'll also be making demarcations of the property of all things immaterial. Huzza. I wonder whose property your remains would be if you'd happen to drop dead on the street after a hart attack. The city government on whose street the lifeless heap of flesh is lying? The owners of the house in front of which you are parked? The clothing company whose clothes you wear?

 

[MethidParadox]

If I pirated windows 95 right now, do you think that Microsoft would lose any money from the loss of a 10-year-old piece of software?

In my opinion, copyrights for computer software should be 7 years, renewable once. Most games made on or before 1998 aren't really making anyone any money anymore and if Blizzard really wants to renew Starcraft they can, but having a copyright on it past 2012 is kind of ridiculous.

You can find out when all you favorite games were released at Moby games

Hare are some games made on or before 1991:
Battletoads
Bomberman
Castle of Dr. Brain
Contra (1991)
Duke Nukem
Gobliiins
Holiday Lemmings
Leisure Suit Larry 1 through 5
Marble Madness
The Secret of Monkey Island (Monkey Island 1)
Simcity 1
Scorched Earth
Zero Wing

Your not thinking of it from the developer's point of view...

Imagine you made your own game, it did somewhat well... After 14 years if the game was still making 1,000$ a year in sales wouldnt you want that money? Or perhaps you want to make a new version of the game, after 14 years if someone beats you to it then your out of luck... It was your intellectual property but now someone else has taken control of it for their own profit... that would suck

 

[calculon000]

After 14 years, the game could not possibly be making the company any money any more. I challenge you to find any game that's 14+ years old in any computer store today, even in the bargain bins.

 

[alec]

After 14 years, the game could not possibly be making the company any money any more. I challenge you to find any game that's 14+ years old in any computer store today, even in the bargain bins.

Oh yeah?

Featuring Pong (1972), Breakout (1976), Sprint (1977), Lunar Lander (1979), Asteroids (1979) and tons more! And apparently still making money...