Copyright

[Mike Meyer]

"The Eternal Squire" <eternalsquire at comcast.net> writes:
>>Further, recent evidence is that this is no longer true in that
>>country, assuming it ever was.
> Wow, how Machiaviellian.

Just an observation on the state of the US. It's been a long while
since the people running the country did so for the people.

>>Copyright by itself does not pay
>>the rent, put food on the table or put people through college. It's
>>strong enough to be do that *if* the public values what you create
>>enough and *if* you work hard enough at marketing it and *if* you
>>produce enough. Those are some mighty big ifs.
> Yes, profitable innovation is 1 percent inspiration plus 99 percent
> persperation.

The critical thing is that copyright isn't a vital part of the
formula. Lots of people make a good living creating intellectual
property without needing copyright on said property to provide the
income.

The whole claim that copyright benefits the creator is a
misdirection. Look at the number of creators who make a living off of
sale of copyrighted materials vs the number of people between the
creator and the consumer making a living off their work. Tell me who
owns the big, fancy offices - the creators, or the middlemen. Tell me
who's lobbying congress to create laws that protect and extend
copyright. Finally, notice the difference between what you pay for a
mass-market work - dollars - and what the creator gets - pennies, and
tell me who gets the difference. Yes, copyright benefits the creator,
but the primary beneficiaries are the people who arrange to put hard
media in the hands of the public - the publishers.

During the bulk of the twentieth century, this arrangement was
reasonable - the middlemen were putting up the money, and taking all
the financial risks. In some cases, they even took on the risk for the
creator themselves, paying the creator an advance against royalties,
so that if the product failed in the market, the creator got paid, and
they took the hit for it.

Given all that, the *real* question isn't "How will the creator get
paid?", it's "How will the creator get published?" The last few
decades have given us a *lot* of answers to that: put it on their web
site, which can be had for free; put it in a podcat; blog it; put it
in a torrent; and so on. How they make money off of it after that is
still being explored, but people are doing it. Yes, the creator
doesn't sell as many copies this way. On the other hand, they get a
much larger percentage of the price of the product.

Publishers are in danger of becoming irrelevant. That's why they're
making all the noise, and doing everything they can to limit the
publics rights. They're distracting people from the real issue - their
bottom line - by claiming it's "for the good of the creator", while
they try and make sure their business model - the one where they get
the bulk of the profits - stays in place. *These* are the people whose
side you are arguing, not the creator.

>>Maybe "the people" you're talking about above are "the rich corporations
>>with the congresscritters in their pockets." But that's hardly "the
>>majority".
> It sometimes works that way, unfortunately.  But at least we can vote
> the
> bastards out when we hear of such things.

It's been working that way regulary since the 1920s, and the same
bastards are still running the country.

>>You apparently think that taking the opportunity for the creator to be
>>rewarded for their efforts is ok if you deride other people who do
>>that very thing.
> And in what way is piracy a form of creation?

That's a complete non-sequitor.

>>So what's the difference between the RIAA and a
>>pirate who publicly points out that what the RIAA is up to?
> The difference is that the RIAA does not copy software without the
> copyright holder's consent.

Actually, they do. More accurately, the companies that form the RIAA
do. That's the point.

        <mike
-- 
Mike Meyer <mwm at mired.org>			http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.