Pirates in Parliment

[Ayiekie]

Civil liberties are not undermined by enforcing the laws as they exist. If they were, then you could challenge that in court (or more to the point, the ACLU would).

Your papers do not support your conclusion. Nor does your own link. To quote:

"An explosion in research (mainly dependent on access to proprietary data) as a result of public interest in these issues means that we are now in a position to provide answers with some degree of certainty. The basic result is that online illegal file-sharing does have a negative impact on traditional sales. The size of this effect is debated, and ranges from 0 to 100% of the sales decline in recent years, but a figure of between 20 and 40% would be a reasonable consensus value (i.e. that file-sharing accounted for 20-40% of the decline in sales not a 20-40% decline in sales)."

Of course, there is, as usual, no good reason given by the file-sharing apologists as to what exactly that other 60-80% of decline in sales comes from; it just magically happens to coincide chronologically with file-sharing affecting the industry (any industry, since that drop of sales that of course completely coincidentally chronologically matched the rise of easy and popular file-sharing in the target audience happened to music, movies, anime, et al). I notice you quoted the paragraph directly below that, but declined to mention where even your own source admits that file-sharing has an overall negative impact. Also, let us quote your own source again on the "consensus" you say exists: "While, as they emphasize, this result is preliminary and based on limited data it indicates the urgent need for more research on this issue..." That's a hypothesis, not a consensus.

And, of course, it's bullshit. Once again, there is already many real-world case studies of the market effects of copyright law being unenforced and unenforceable. One of them, for instance, is called "The Republic of Taiwan". The results are, as is intuitively obvious, that when people can get copyrighted material for free or for a pittance without any inconvenience, sales of legitimate product collapse completely. This is also the case for software sales in China and Africa, newspaper websites, and so forth.

While filesharing has legitimate uses for sampling or for artists who cannot use traditional marketing, using free convenient access to the exact same product you are trying to sell for money will lead into a collapse of sales for that product. People will not often pay for what they can easily get for free. This isn't even Economics 101, it's more like Baby's First Economics Book. While some income can certainly be recouped by live performances, merchandise, distributing free product with advertisements et al, which is often trumpeted by file-sharing supporters, all of those options are available if the product isn't being illegally taken to begin with. They do not replace the lost income; they are alternate revenue streams that were available anyway.

File-sharing has never been good for any industry. Ever. That is not my opinion, but simple statistical fact. Despite what you think, that is not going to change, either. It goes completely counter to human nature to expect it to, and that is why the people who are actually involved in the business end of the industries affected by it treat it as an enemy. It is not because every single person involved in running the industries is so stupid that they cannot see the conclusions that are so obvious to a bunch of people on the Internet - it is because those conclusions are self-serving, selectively blind nonsense.

[CattyNebulart]

...but a figure of between 20 and 40% would be a reasonable consensus value (i.e. that file-sharing accounted for 20-40% of the decline in sales not a 20-40% decline in sales)

That is from a 2005 summary so it can be argued it's on the dated side, but lets complete the quote with the next paragraph, bold added by me:

Beyond this basic result several other very interesting facts have emerged. First is the differential impact of file-sharing on an artist depending on their existing popularity. According to Blackburn who investigates this issue the ‘bottom’ 3/4 of artists sell more as a consequence of file-sharing while the top 1/4 sell less. Second is the first tentative estimates (by Waldfogel and Rob) of the welfare consequences of file-sharing. Waldfogel and Rob’s dramatic result is that file-sharing on average yields a gain to society three times the loss to the music industry in lost sales. While, as they emphasize, this result is preliminary and based on limited data it indicates the urgent need for more research on this issue as well as the possibility to have a win-win situation in which both creators and the public get a better deal via a change to alternative compensation system such as a levy.

Of course, there is, as usual, no good reason given by the file-sharing apologists as to what exactly that other 60-80% of decline in sales comes from;

You seem to have problems with reading comprehension, but several of the papers address those facts, AND THEY HAVE RESEARCH AND EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE TO BACK UP THEIR CLAIMS!

The rest of your post is the same sort of bullshit. You claim statistical fact but you still havn't given me any papers to support that. Put up or shut up.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[Ayiekie]

I already pointed out that "gain to society" bit is nebulous horseshit. Note that the "bottom 3/4" who supposedly benefit don't
outweigh the lost sales for the top 1/4. File-sharing leads to less sales - that's "statistical fact", as quoted by your own cheerleader (and not
by you). "Gain to society" is not.

And no. I am not going to argue point by point with a bunch of reports that don't unequivocally say filesharing is good for the overall industry. This is
not the open and shut case you want to think it is, which is why the people involved in the actual business end of things don't share your views. Have you
wondered why that is?

Funny how the magical gain in sales file-sharing apologists insist exists has never, not even once, actually happened in any industry affected by filesharing,
isn't it? It doesn't seem to matter what year, what media, what industry, or what country... file-sharing coincides with a drop in sales and profits.
But, of course, that's all just a complete and total coincidence.

Anyway, since it's just the two of us talking, and I'm ignoring your studies and you're ignoring my real-world examples, I think I'm done with
this unless anything new and interesting is brought up.

[Wiregeek]

please continue, I'm collecting horseshit.
"No can brain today. Want cheezeburger."
From NGE: Nobody Dies, by Gregg Landsman
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5579457/1/NGE_Nobody_Dies

[CattyNebulart]

Anyway, since it's just the two of us talking, and I'm ignoring your studies and you're ignoring my real-world examples, I think I'm done with this unless anything new and interesting is brought up.

Economics is real world, ignoring it is like ignoring evolution, stupid but many people do it anyway. And you haven't given any real world examples, not even anecdotal ones. If you point out empirical evidence contradicting the papers you have a point, and that would indicate that the papers are seriously flawed.
I would point out that if you manage something like that it should be a fairly trivial step to get a PhD in economics based on your work. So i don't expect that merely that you point out some other group of economist providing evidence backing up your claims. If you can't it rather implies that the real world doesn't work like you want it to.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[Rev Dark]

As internet users we have access to a great deal of people's work - both legitimately and illegitimately.

We have the same access to those things in real life; and wheter or not you choose to obtain them legitimately or illegitimately is a matter between you, the
owner, and in the event of one of the choices, the baillifs.

Subscription or Pay-to-Play services are available; but are really not that finely tuned yet. Nor are the audience for that matter. It is inconvenient to
make use of a variety of services that allow you to pay for your content; or to get you paid for your content. Paypal takes a chunk off that makes small
transactions of limited viability.

I think it was Scott McLeod, although I am sure others have done so, who noted the idea of micro-payments. A mechanism by which pay-for-play content could be
rapidly provided in ammounts of a 5 cents to a fraction of a cent.

You want your daily web-comic? 2cents. The days online news. 10cents. A pictures of those large, bouncy, boobies. 3 cents.

In this model even a cent a day, five days a week, for 1,000 users =$2,600 yearly; for Sluggy Freelance at approximately 100,0000; this number becomes rather
significant. Even a moderately popular webcomic could generate significant revenue; rewarding the creative force behind it.

This is going to have to take changes in technology; including pay-as-you-go internet cards (not everyone has or would want to use a credit card) which are
already in their infancy - buying content credits like you would buy mintues for a pay-as-you-go cel phone. More importantly it is going to require a change
in attitude.

I am not going to hold my breath on the last one

Shayne

[Valles]

http://www.baen.com/library/palaver6.htm

Publishing is apparently unaffected by file-sharing.
===========

===============================================
"V, did you do something foolish?"
"Yes, and it was glorious."

[Wiregeek]

Publishing is apparently unaffected by file-sharing.

I, personally, have spent many times more moneys through Baen.Com than I would have spent in the same timeframe on actual books.
"No can brain today. Want cheezeburger."
From NGE: Nobody Dies, by Gregg Landsman
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5579457/1/NGE_Nobody_Dies

[CattyNebulart]

Sorry for ignoring this topic for a while. been busy with other things and i still don't have the time to compose a propper reply.

Civil liberties are not undermined by enforcing the laws as they exist. If they were, then you could challenge that in court (or more to the point, the ACLU would).

The DMCA, has raised significant civil liberty objections, so has the Hadopi law in France and several others. Look at the Swedish IPRED Laws, or the great Australian firewall. As detailed in the talk by the pirate party at a google talk, enforcement of ant-filesharing requires the curtailing of several civil liberties.

I think it was Scott McLeod, although I am sure others have done so, who noted the idea of micro-payments. A mechanism by which pay-for-play content could be rapidly provided in ammounts of a 5 cents to a fraction of a cent.

micro-payments is an old idea and it has been just around the corner for over a decade. i don't see it happening until we can be a lot more confident in computer security. how would you prevent an unscrupulus website from randomly charging people without making the system so cumbersome that people feel it's a pain to use? What about people whose computer has been compromised? these are fairly basic problems and i'm not aware of any good solutions to them.

file-sharing coincides with a drop in sales and profits. But, of course, that's all just a complete and total coincidence.

The data doesn't quite show that, also remember there are other, known, factors at work, such as economic ups and downs. Read the studies if you want details. I'm not arguing that file-sharing as a distribution system doesn't create problems, distributors like blockbuster might go the way of the buggy-whip maker when cars became popular.

Once opon a time there was a large outcry against libraries, if they let people borrow books for free how will publishers ever sell books. Later there was hometappeing is killing music. now it's filesharing. somehow I doubt the world will stop turning.

Like the bean free library noted in one of their palavers, authors are not going to go away because their services are still wanted, what is changing is the way they are compensated. this requires a adjustment in business models but that is something that technology has been doing since there was technology.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[ECSNorway]

What Baen has noticed is that most people who get into E-Books outside of the "Hacker E733T" crew, people aren't treating e-books as a
/replacement/ for paper books, but as a /supplement/ to them.

This is actually different from movies and music, where many people /do/ treat them as replacements for buying the actual album or dvd.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Epsilon]

Also Baen doesn't have the one feature of a truly copyright free society.

The ability for me to make a copy of your work and sell it without your premission. Books are still a physical thing, one that an be sold and distributed as a
physical thing and most book-readers like to have books (I know I do). However music CDs, well I buy them and they go directly onto my iPod and then I never
look at the CD again. However if I was able to buy say, the latest Claymore manga at oen store for $10.00 and at a second store for $5.00...

If you think people are going to be, on the whole, nice and spend money to support artists directly I direct you to Wal-Mart. Now, imagine what will happen to
Wal-Mart once they realise that they don't have to pay artists or distributers one red centin liscensing fees to put the latest popular
music on their shelves. Can you really imagine the vast majority of the purchasing public caring one way or another who gets the money for
their music purchases? If so, well, you have a far better opinion of humanity than I do.

The problem with all these file-sharing studies is that they are based on a bad premise. It may be true that free access to music may increase overall
spending, but that does not gaurentee that anyone will spend that money by giving it to the artist directly. If you want to study what actual lack of copyright
produces look at music which is being actively and massively pirated, for cash money. The look at how well the original artist does when someone can constantly
and consistently undercut his price.

The one place this is happening is Taiwan.

----------------------

Epsilon

[CattyNebulart]

The problem with all these file-sharing studies is that they are based on a bad premise. It may be true that free access to music may increase overall spending, but that does not gaurentee that anyone will spend that money by giving it to the artist directly. If you want to study what actual lack of copyright produces look at music which is being actively and massively pirated, for cash money. The look at how well the original artist does when someone can constantly and consistently undercut his price.

Taiwan is a very different case economically. A much better example would be Spain where file-sharing for personal use is allowed. blockbuster is gone but otherwise it hasn't had much of an effect, Spanish artists still seem to be doing quite well. However i don't have hard data to back up my assertions, but I'll try to find some.

In fact artists don't need copyright as much as other groups, for painters the original painting tends to have most of the value and for musicians the main source of income is usually concerts anyway. Writers need something like copyright, and so do the movie and software industries.

Much of the software industry could exists without copyright, but it would look very different from the software industry today, of the shelf software would be relegated to open source or similar with all software companies either supporting software or making custom software on contract.

But anyway few people are arguing for a world without copyright and those that do usually argue for another compensation mechanism.

for those defending copyright think about the song happy birthday, it's copyrighted, so each birthday party at which it's sung is technically a public performance and it requires a license for it (well public performance is somewhat ill defined, it depends). I would argue that the song is a cultural artefact and that it should be public domain.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[Epsilon]

I support sane copyright laws. I also realise that they (and current distribution models) have to be revised to take into account the realities of the age we
live in.

"Five years" is not sane.

"Life of the artist" is sane.

I don't really think anyone can do anything about you singing Happy Birthday to your kid, anymore than someone can do something about you singing in the
shower or serenading your significant other while practising the guitar. Such performances are not what copyright was meant to stop. Nor do I support the
heavy-handed tactics of the RIAA.

------------------

Epsilon

[CattyNebulart]

"Five years" is not sane.

"Life of the artist" is sane.

I don't think life of the artists is particularly sane or usefull. For a large movie who is the artists in question? The longest lived one? what about Windows or other software? Also that gives works at the end of ones life very little while at the begining it gives a lot. This also makes investments in works very uncertain.

A fixed term makes much more sense, and then the question is how long. I think 5 years is long enough, but reasonable people can disagree with me. I have seen economic studies arguing that the ideal copyright term is anywhere from 2 to 15 years. I think 15 years is too long, but it would be the longest copyright term I would support. However I think that replacing the fixed term of copyright with a flexible term would be better, where each year of copyright protection costs at least twice as much as the previous year. as long as the values are properly chosen and adjusted for inflation it should enforce reasonable copyright terms by itself, giving longer copyright to more valuable works. However a big problem with that would be the small artists and open source software, to name just two things which would have a hard time paying for copyright protection.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[Epsilon]

CattyNebulart wrote:

---

I think 15 years is too long, but it would be the longest copyright term I would support.

Yeah, if the copyright were fifteen years I would not bother being a writer.

I can see your point about colaborative works like movies or video games. However I think you could still base the movies around the lifetime of the person who
wrote the script. In the case of other collaborative works (like co-written novels) just use the lifespan of all people involved.

And I personally don't see it being an issue with computer programs. Five years or five hundred years won't much matter one way or another. Software
becomes obsolete within two or three years anyway.

And no, "lifetime" is not too long. It's been "lifetime" for a good hundred years now and no, we have not experienced some horrific
crahs in the creative market of the world. If you can't wait for Rowling to die before you can buy legal copies of Snape/Harry fancomics... well,
personalyl I will not weep for that.

---------------

Epsilon

[Epsilon]

Some additional questions for your "5-15 years" copyright period.

So I only get copyright to my 5 years, let's say. When do we start counting?

From the moment I finish the work? The moment I publish the work? The moment I start the work? The moment I think up the idea? What if I tell somebody my idea,
inlcuding my complete outline, then put that aside because say I'm working on a kickass TV series as head writer which gets renewed for seven seasons then
when I go back to work on my project I discover the person I showed the outline to has published there own version of the book two years back?

Also, what is copyrighted? Do I get rights to my characters and plot? Or just my actual story? Or just the actual literal story I made. If I create say, the
next Harry Potter and someone makes another Harry Potter novel and starts selling it in stores at the same time as mine do I get to dispute this?

What if I write and selfpublish a novel, but because I am a single human being without access to a massive advertising machine my novel is not popular. Then
ten years down the line somebody reads it who does have access to such an advertising network and my novels turn into the next biggest
best-seller and they make a ovie about it and everything. I suppose I get... uh, nothing I guess. Unless somebody feels sympathy towards me and decides to
donate something to me, since the books I print out of neccesity cost about ten times as much as those the massive publishing house can produce and sell using
their economies of scale.

Heck, what if in five years after I publish my novel someone wants to produce a movie based on it. I guess I get jack and shit for that, too. Note that in your
scanerio if the people at Warner Bros had waited one more year before releasing the first Harry Potter movie Rowling would have gotten bupkiss. Similarly if I
create a series that someone wants to turn into a video game, or comic or some other adaptation I get... jack and shit. The development time for a decent video
game can run years by itself.

In short, why would I, a creator, ever bother to create anything if I would never personally see a dime of it?

And before you say that "people would support the original creator" I refer to "mom and pop store vs Walmart" for exactly how far believing
in the goodness of human beings will get you.

------------------

Epsilon

[CattyNebulart]

And no, "lifetime" is not too long.

perhaps i'm not being clear. My problem with lifetime is that it is too variable. it can last a minute or a century, considering that most creators sell their copyright to make money now, rather than wait for years, or to get funds to make the work in question in the first place. This variability means risk, and risk will drive down the price of what the creator will get. Also it will have wierd effects like sick artists being able to get less money for their works, and multi-author works being worth more because the risk is less. This is not desirable for anyone.

Yeah, if the copyright were fifteen years I would not bother being a writer.

Perhaps, but weather they will still get money 15 years from now is beyond most people's horizon, there will undoubtedly be some that instead of writing will choose to do something else instead, but equally some who wrote some things earlier will feel compelled to keep writing instead of resting on their laurels to keep earning money.
Like most of public policy it's a balancing act, but there isn't much agreement on how long the duration should be. However i am a big supporter of science and the studies i have seen all agree that it's less than 15 years. some say as low as 2, others 5 or 6 and yet others say 15 years. now some of this disagreement is because the studies tried to maximize slightly different things, and some is due to a difference in models and not enough empirical data.

As for software you would be surprised at how much old software is still in use. My dad forinstance goes to great pains to keep his 10 year old word processor and CAD program around because he doesn't feel like learning how to use the newer versions, which don't add any feature he needs or wants. As the software industry matures this will probably become more common. keep in mind 20 years ago computers where still rare, 10 years ago Windows 98 was less than a year old. 5 years ago WinXP was the dominant OS and that hasn't changed yet.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[CattyNebulart]

So I only get copyright to my 5 years, let's say. When do we start counting?

same as current copyright, from the moment of publication.

Also, what is copyrighted? Do I get rights to my characters and plot? Or just my actual story? Or just the actual literal story I made. If I create say, the next Harry Potter and someone makes another Harry Potter novel and starts selling it in stores at the same time as mine do I get to dispute this?

that depends on what you mean by next harry potter. say harry potter has lapsed into public domain and then you write a continuation, and someone else does too, then you don't get to dispute it, but if they make a continuation of your continuation then you could dispute it. Thta is the way it currently works too, but it has been a while since something went into public domain.

...uh, nothing I guess.

Yup, it sucks but it is also a relatively rare edge case. the exact same thing could happen with any fixed length term, although if it's 100 years it's midly unlikely you will still be alive for it.

I guess I get jack and shit for that, too.

You get free advertising and name recognition. it's not much I'll grant you, but the same can easily happen with any fixed term. There will always be things that will still be profitable at the end of their term, star wars for instance is probably still turning a tidy profit, but almost everything else of the same vintage is out of print. Would it be fair to lucas if others can profit by building on his work? By your argument, no. but you still have to decide some length to be fair, what should it be? 1000 years? 150 years? 50 years? 10 years? 2 days? It depends on what you want to maximize, but economic studies give some good guidelines. Regardless of what you pick some people will get screwed over, this is unavoidable.

The development time for a decent video game can run years by itself.

which is why movie tie in video games are rarely decent to offset the cost of the licence they must release it soon after the movie or whatever meaning it's a rush job. they are also usualy developed while the movie is being filmed, or the basic game is made and then the artwork is plugged in at the final minute to make it similar to a suitable movie.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[Epsilon]

CattyNebulart wrote:

---

same as current copyright, from the moment of publication.

That is not actually when copyright starts.

If I write a novel and let it sit on my harddrive for five years and then someone elses say, stole my files and published it, I could prove I wrote it first
and thus claim copyright.

----------------------

Epsilon

[Epsilon]

CattyNebulart wrote:

---

And no, "lifetime" is not too long.

perhaps i'm not being clear. My problem with lifetime is that it is too variable. it can last a minute or a century,

I was using it in the same way that "life without parole" is used. So roughly "25 years with option to extend".

As for software you would be surprised at how much old software is still in use. My dad forinstance goes to great pains to keep his 10 year old word
processor and CAD program around because he doesn't feel like learning how to use the newer versions, which don't add any feature he needs or wants.
As the software industry matures this will probably become more common. keep in mind 20 years ago computers where still rare, 10 years ago Windows 98 was
less than a year old. 5 years ago WinXP was the dominant OS and that hasn't changed yet.

Unless your dad is paying a steady liscensing fee for his CAD program it hardly matters. The people who are BUYING software are buying new
software. WinXP has lasted a long time, but it is being replaced. OS tend to last longer than individual programs, this is true.

-----------------------

Epsilon

[CattyNebulart]

That is not actually when copyright starts.

That is when the clock starts ticking, if you can prove a work belongs to you and someone else just started publishing it you get the protection of copyright, for 5 years from that date.

Unless your dad is paying a steady licensing fee for his CAD program it hardly matters.

it matters once a 10'000$ piece of software gets competition from a 10$ earlier version.

Think about how badly vista would be doing if it actually had to compete with WinXP. As for operating systems lasting longer XP lasted a very long time, usually Microsoft ships a new version every 2-3 years. (see 95-98-me-xp and now vista-Win7)

I was using it in the same way that "life without parole" is used. So roughly "25 years with option to extend".

Ah but from your earlier comments I gather that it does end at death regardless. giving it a limited number of years or until death is a vast improvement because it lowers the variability but it still has the problem of perhaps just lasting minutes and therefore discouraging investment. The current Berne convention requires at least life+50 years as copyright term, but gets around the variability with a fixed 50 year term. How long the author will live is not a factor because no-one cares about possible revenue 50 years into the future. 50 years ago the beatles didn't even exist yet, and of all the contemporary bands of the beetles how many are still being produced? Not many because it's usually not worth it, a clear sign that the copyright is too long.

If you mean to say that copyright should last 28 years with an option to extend (like it was in the 1920's) then it is a much harder position to attack. It's a lot more reasonable, though the copyright act of 1790 was closer with a time of 14 years plus a possible 14 year extension. now i will grant that probably not as many books where written under the 1790 copyright act as have been under the current copyright act, but I believe that has more to do with other factors, like population, literacy rate, the overall economy, etc.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."