OneManga shutting down

[Ayiekie]

Let's try a more apropos analogy, then.

How long should a sculptor be paid for creating a statue? Does it make a difference if that statue ends up in a private collection or a town square? Does it make a difference if the statue is transitory (for example, made of ice and placed in a wedding reception hall)?

How long should a singer be paid for creating a song? Does it make a difference if that song ends up never being played or on the Top 40? Does it make a difference if the song is transitory (for example, only sung once and never recorded)?

I find your arguing somewhat disingenuous given your previous comments on the issue, but sure:
A sculptor should get paid as much as they can negotiate to be paid. If they choose to work in ephemeral media, then unfortunately that means they're going to reduce their potential for getting paid for any given work in the future (though not completely destroy it if they can retain rights to media taken of the work while it existed, which of course most of them do not have). A sculpture is something of a different case to a novel or song because it is a singular, physical object that can be possessed; the sculptor is always within their rights to retain the actual object in lieu of sufficient payment (unless they were contracted to make it, of course), whereas an author or singer cannot analogously do this except by never allowing the work to reach the public.
A singer often doesn't create a song. If they do, then they should retain the rights to it just as an author does their work. No, I don't see why popularity makes a difference. In fact, I think if Singer A creates a song that is obscure and then Singer B covers it to huge success, then Singer A should indeed be compensated for their work (and so should Singer B, of course, but not to the same extent as if they had created the entire work themselves). I don't see whether it's relevent if it was recorded or not if the origin of the song is unambiguous.
Ultimately, my viewpoint is that the rights of the creators supersede that of the public. The public gets the privilege of consuming; the creators should be rewarded for this. I do not see the need to further reward the public for doing nothing. I would note that artists who feel differently, provided they retain the rights to their work, are perfectly free to release it into the public domain (the vast majority do not, including those that purport to support free downloading). Under the schemes of those who would destroy copyright, artists who want to retain control over their own creations have no such recourse; it is stripped from them regardless of their wishes.

[robkelk]

I find your arguing somewhat disingenuous given your previous comments on the issue,

I don't know why, since it's based in the same premise as my previous comments.

A sculptor should get paid as much as they can negotiate to be paid. If they choose to work in ephemeral media, then unfortunately that means they're going to reduce their potential for getting paid for any given work in the future

But music is, by its very nature, ephemeral. It's only when recorded that it becomes as lasting as a sculpture.

A sculpture is something of a different case to a novel or song because it is a singular, physical object that can be possessed; the sculptor is always within their rights to retain the actual object in lieu of sufficient payment (unless they were contracted to make it, of course), whereas an author or singer cannot analogously do this except by never allowing the work to reach the public.

However, a sculpture can be used as a form around which a mold is made, and the mold used to mass-produce the sculpture. Likewise, a song can captured in a master recording, and the master recording used to mass-produce the song. (Yes, not every sculpture becomes a form for a mold, and not every song becomes a master recording for a record.) I don't see how this argument is even valid, let alone relevant.

No, I don't see why popularity makes a difference.

The RIAA would have us believe that more popular songs are worth more money, since they ask for damages based on number of downloads of a song.

I don't see whether it's relevent if it was recorded or not if the origin of the song is unambiguous.

Recording a song changes it from an ephemeral artwork to a lasting artwork, just as sculpting a statue in ice changes the statue from a lasting artwork to an ephemeral artwork. Allowing for this behaviour makes the two types of artistry more directly comparable.

Ultimately, my viewpoint is that the rights of the creators supersede that of the public.

Ah.

Why?

I do not see the need to further reward the public for doing nothing.

And I do not see the need to further reward the artists for doing nothing. They've been paid once already for that work. (Unless, as you pointed out, they chose to release their work into the public domain - but that's their choice.)
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[CattyNebulart]

I think that their desires supersede those of the public, who did nothing to earn the right to do what they want with the work. And no, since I specifically said "life plus a certain amount of years to provide for children", that does not form a basis for copyright to be extended indefinitely.

I have a lot of issues with your post, but lets break it down bit by bit.

1) right to make a derivative work.
Why does Artist A have a right to Artist B work if Artists B work was based on it? That is the most natural way for humans to make stories, as an example I'll cite the Arthurian legends and fanfiction.net. The restriction on derivative works is a big problem for the way art has been practiced for most of human history. This is one of my main sticking point with current copyright law.

2) Why should the artist be granted a non economicaly optimal copyright length?
Copyright terms are set by public policy, What criteria would you use aside from being economicaly optimal (ie the benefit to the entire soceity is maximized) for public policy and why? Is it restricted to just copyright terms

3) why only for creative works?
Why do scientists not get paid for their discoveries until well after their death. few people have done as much for the human race as Newton or Pastuer, and yet they don't get a ton of money for their discoveries. Why is it that if Bill gates sells his share in Microsoft his children won't get a share of the profits? It is afterall his lifes work so by your logic they are entiteled to a share.

4) Having works based on the lifetime of the author is unfair.
Someone old and or sick would be at a disadvantage over someone young and healthy because the copyright term would be expected to be much longer for the young person. The shorter the time after death copyright lasts the more pronounced the effect is. But how is that good public policy? What is wrong with a fixed term?

5) Why only their children?
Why not the great grandchildren, for 7 generations? why just children, and what if the artist doesn't have children. Why does the lifetime of the children not matter? What did the children do to deserve to leach of the work of their parent until long after they are dead?

6) why only life + 25 years?
Why 25 and not 20? or 30? or 5? or 500?
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]

Under the schemes of those who would destroy copyright, artists who want to retain control over their own creations have no such recourse; it is stripped from them regardless of their wishes.

Here you are completely wrong, if they choose never to release it they can retain perfect control. By the act of releasing it they open their work up to modification. Regardless, it was their choice. what they wanted to get paid for it and that is why they published it? Tough shit they choose to release it so that was more important to them than control over the work.

As to releasing stuff into the public domain, I might argue that certain taxbreaks, on say paying mortage vs paying rent are stupid and unfair to those who rent but that would't stop me from taking advantage of those breaks.

Just because you believe something is bad public policy it does not mean that you have to not use it, because the converse is not true. If you believe taxes are bad public policy that does not excuse you from paying them. we as a soceity decide on the rules and it is not hypocritical to take advantage of the rules while pointing out they are stupid.

If those artists released all their copyright to the public domain after 5 years, would they get to use other peoples copyright in their works if those works are at least 5 years old? Nope, and that is why one can argue it is bad while still taking advantage of it.
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]

1) right to make a derivative work.

2) Why should the artist be granted a non economicaly optimal copyright length?

Just to point out some things:
1- Right to control derivative works is covered by Trademark, not Copyright. Also, despite the constant claims that such a right to control derivative work cripples creativity we seem to live in a world were staggering amounts of creative work are produced all the time.
2- We don't base all of our decisions based on what is econimically optimal. You want an economically optimal way of running your health care system? The cost of a bullet is less than a dollar.The cost of treating someone for terminal cancer to extend their life for three years is several million dollars.
-------------------
Epsilon

[Epsilon]

However, a sculpture can be used as a form around which a mold is made, and the mold used to mass-produce the sculpture. Likewise, a song can captured in a master recording, and the master recording used to mass-produce the song. (Yes, not every sculpture becomes a form for a mold, and not every song becomes a master recording for a record.) I don't see how this argument is even valid, let alone relevant.

If someone creates a mold of a statue I sculpt so they can reproduce that statue then they are copying my mold and unless I sold them the copyright on that statue then reproducing would break my copyright. So if someone started duplicating my sculptures they would be breaking my copyright, the same as if someone started copying my record or novel.
Similarly: If one person buys a copy of my book and nobody else ever buys a copy of it, then I'm not going to get any more money, am I?
------------------
Epsilon

[Bob Schroeck]

Let me note that I haven't abandoned this thread, but am thinking over the points made and why I feel the way I do. If/when I come to some resolution, then I will post a proper reply.

In the mean time, let me point out that copyright was invented not so much to ensure a creator's work stayed his own for decades and decades, but rather to encourage creators (with a period in which they were allowed sole privilege to profit from them) to make works that would after a while enter the public domain for the enrichment of the culture as a whole. Let me repeat that -- copyright was intended to encourage the expansion of the public domain, by a similar mechanism to patents -- an exclusive right to reproduce (and profit) from a work for a long, but not too long, period.

The modern slow mutation of copyright into an eternal protection and an eternal profit stream is a perversion of the original concept of copyright, fostered by corporations that are essentially immortal and far greedier than any individual could be. When Jefferson shaped the first American copyright law, he never imagined that anyone but the individual creator could possibly own the rights to a work. He would have loathed the idea that a company could own a work -- and would want to keep complete control over it in perpetuity. The idea behind copyright was to encourage creators to enrich the culture, not enrich corporate coffers.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[robkelk]

However, a sculpture can be used as a form around which a mold is made, and the mold used to mass-produce the sculpture. Likewise, a song can captured in a master recording, and the master recording used to mass-produce the song. (Yes, not every sculpture becomes a form for a mold, and not every song becomes a master recording for a record.) I don't see how this argument is even valid, let alone relevant.

If someone creates a mold of a statue I sculpt so they can reproduce that statue then they are copying my mold and unless I sold them the copyright on that statue then reproducing would break my copyright. So if someone started duplicating my sculptures they would be breaking my copyright, the same as if someone started copying my record or novel.

Yes, if someone copies a statue or a book or a song without permission, then they're breaking copyright law unless the artwork is in the public domain. Conversely, the person who does hold the copyright on the statue or book or song is entitled to make such copies.

I still haven't seen a convincing argument why someone who creates a song should have more protection than someone who creates a statue. (Before anyone brings it up, "that's the way we've always done it" is not a convincing argument.)

Similarly: If one person buys a copy of my book and nobody else ever buys a copy of it, then I'm not going to get any more money, am I?

Quire right - if only one copy of a book is sold, the author is only paid once. (Or, more likely, not paid at all because the printing costs were higher than the profit from that one sale.) But if only one copy of a song is ever sold, and it's sold to a broadcast company, the artist gets paid every time the song is played. That's hardly fair, is it?
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[CattyNebulart]

1- Right to control derivative works is covered by Trademark, not Copyright. Also, despite the constant claims that such a right to control derivative work cripples creativity we seem to live in a world were staggering amounts of creative work are produced all the time.

Nope, trademark is quite different and it works differently. some things are both trademarked and copyrighted (Mickey Mouse), just trademarked (3, the phone company forinstance) or just copyrighted (Lord of the Rings).

Copyright gives you the right to control derivative works, which is why for instance fanfiction.net is possibly illegal (definitly operating deep in the grey zone of the law). It is widely expected to be decalred non-infrining if it ever goes to court but they are dancing a fine line. Fanfiction.net would have to prove that they did not negatively impact book/movie/whatever sales of the work that they would be sued over. A difficult task.

And the very wealth of creative works (again fanfiction.net) is a strong argument for why copyright is not needed for artists (it of course is, people are happy to create without pay, but distribution is quite another matter).

imagine a world where the fanfiction.net authors could charge for stories, how many more would write and how much more would they write for some financial incentive? Of course when charging for something fanfiction.net would take a cut, possibly the rights holders of the thing the fanfic is based on, the credit card processor would charge a fee, etc etc. so it's somewhat infeasible, unless fanfiction.net had a say a subscription model or something.

2- We don't base all of our decisions based on what is econimically optimal. You want an economically optimal way of running your health care system? The cost of a bullet is less than a dollar.The cost of treating someone for terminal cancer to extend their life for three years is several million dollars.

And a very good example it is, and yet I would argue it is economically optimal to take care of someone with terminal cancer. Because it's worth it to people to pay a certain insurance premium to be taken are of if something like that happens, and since the cost is spread over many people over a long time it is more or less balanced out. Now there is a whole host of economic problems by making such a third party payer system, including many perverse incentives but that is why you get such debates over the health care system from time to time. Sure the bullet might be cheaper but most people would rather spend a bit more to get the benefits, and the cost for everyone is a lot lower if everybody participates, because otherwise those that are healthier than average would have an incentive to drop out, which drives up the cost for those that remain in the system. Therefore it is arguably economically optimal for everyone to be forced to buy health insurance. there is a lot more detail to it that make the argument more complex but that is the basic equation.

Same deal with pollution controls, sure it has some cost to the business that stops pollution (otherwise they would have stopped already) but the city downriver that needs to spend less to clean up it's water supply benefits. the question with environmental controls is really how much we should all pay to reap maximum reward, and how should this paystructure be organized to give the best results (lowest cost, best incentives for doing better, etc).

Economic optimization makes it so that, for example, the value per capacita is optimized. Forinstance assume you would be willing to pay 5$ for a shirt with a big red X but competition makes it so that you can get the shirt for 1$, you have effectively gained 4$ of value. If you generalize this over the whole economic system you can get significant wealth creation (or destruction, if you set the incentives wrong) without changing the amount of money or stuff in the system, just adjusting the distribution. An example of bad optimization would be if one person owned everything. most of it would have no value because you can't drive a million cars, and everyone else would be in trouble because they own nothing. Such an extreme world can only exist in though experiments but it illustrates how without changing the amount of stuff (cars, butter, etc) or money you can nonetheless alter the value that the society as a whole owns, because having one car has hughe value but the second has less, and the third even less, etc. that is the marginal rate tends to go to zero, and yet the cost in monetary terms stays fixed, but the value doesn't.

We all want entertainment and good artists to be widely distributed, etc, so we give up a variety of rights, such as the ability to make copies or derivative works, to give people a financial incentive to find those people and distribute it so everyone can access it. The artist in turn gives up the privilege of exclusive control of the work in return for money, or whatever other deal they work out with the distributor.

It used to be that printing books was very expensive, however it has gotten much cheaper, and now distribution and sales make up a much larger part of the cost. Distributing it on the internet is even cheaper, which makes the cost of the paywall far more significant, and because of those reasons alone traditional copyright would be under severe threat. Now add in how cheap and easy it is to make copies and old style copyright becomes unenforceable. Add in that many people no longer believe the social contract that supports copyright is a fair deal anymore (why are ebooks as or more expensive than normal books? they should be far cheaper) and the end result is that the system collapses.

The real argument should be about what we are going to do with copyright going forward, because the current system isn't working anymore. A possible solution is to say that we will just devote more resources to enforcement, but who does the enforcing? The rightsholder? that is what is currently in place and even with the excessive sentences and probably illegal blackmail scheme and dirty tricks to save costs it's costing a fortune, and it ruined many peoples lives, and it's unlikely to get much cheaper and it has other costs such as a loss of freedom of speech thanks to overzealous take-down notices. Are we willing to pay that kind of cost? I am not but there are valid arguments to be made for it, just none i could take seriously as real world solutions.
Another solution is to make it a crime and have police looking after it, so do we want to divert resources from rape and murder cases for this or do we want to pay higher taxes?
We can weaken copyright and require registration with a fee and use that fee to fund a group (government or private) who enforce copyrights. This would give a big competitive advantage to big multinationals, and would harm artists, but it is an option.
And so forth there are a lot of ideas on fixing the copyright regime, but it's generally agreed the status quo is untenable going forward. Unfortunately while nothing is free, everybody would like someone else to pay for it.
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]

Yes, if someone copies a statue or a book or a song without permission, then they're breaking copyright law unless the artwork is in the public domain. Conversely, the person who does hold the copyright on the statue or book or song is entitled to make such copies.

I still haven't seen a convincing argument why someone who creates a song should have more protection than someone who creates a statue. (Before anyone brings it up, "that's the way we've always done it" is not a convincing argument.)

Because that's the way the sale was made, frankly.
If I make a really, really pretty statue that everyone wants to see I could sell it to a museum and demand in the sale that I get $1 for every person that see it in the museum. I would be in my rights to demand that kind of contract. The museum would be in their rights to refuse. Similarly if I wanted to I could sell my song for a flat fee and allow any broadcaster to put it on for free for the rest of time.
There is no difference between the two, except for that created by you.
Let's say I own a house but no longer want to live on it, and would like to make some money off this house. I can sell the house outright, getting a single lump sum payment for the house. That is cool. Or I could rent the house, recieving a payment per month of use by anyone who inhabits it. That is also cool. The difference is which I would prefer to do, but the underlying laws of real estate do not change.
-------------------
Epsilon

[Ayiekie]

I find your arguing somewhat disingenuous given your previous comments on the issue,

I don't know why, since it's based in the same premise as my previous comments.

Because your actual position, unless it's changed, is that artists should not be doing art to make a living. That is what you said the last time we discussed the matter. Thus I do not have any particular belief that you are arguing in good faith, or, to be more generous, that we come from even remotely compatible starting assumptions.

But music is, by its very nature, ephemeral. It's only when recorded that it becomes as lasting as a sculpture.

So what?

However, a sculpture can be used as a form around which a mold is made, and the mold used to mass-produce the sculpture. Likewise, a song can captured in a master recording, and the master recording used to mass-produce the song. (Yes, not every sculpture becomes a form for a mold, and not every song becomes a master recording for a record.) I don't see how this argument is even valid, let alone relevant.

And, uh, the molds are protected by copyright, which has been pointed out to you. So... what's your point? What are you driving at here, exactly?

The RIAA would have us believe that more popular songs are worth more money, since they ask for damages based on number of downloads of a song.

I really couldn't care less what the RIAA would "have you believe". Why is that relevant? Am I the RIAA? Am I associated with them? Have I espoused a belief in their position on the matter? Have I even brought them up?

Recording a song changes it from an ephemeral artwork to a lasting artwork, just as sculpting a statue in ice changes the statue from a lasting artwork to an ephemeral artwork. Allowing for this behaviour makes the two types of artistry more directly comparable.

Except they still aren't, because one is a physical object that cannot be perfectly replicated, and one is not a physical object and can be. You should be familiar with this concept, since it is the one ever-so-tediously quoted to explain why pirating things isn't really stealing even though it is illegally taking something you have no right to.

Why?

I explained that already. The creators create the product. The public is already rewarded by having the privilege of consuming it.
Why do you think the public deserves to supersede the artist and gain as much right over their work, during the artist's lifetime, as the artist has?

And I do not see the need to further reward the artists for doing nothing. They've been paid once already for that work. (Unless, as you pointed out, they chose to release their work into the public domain - but that's their choice.)

And yet, that isn't how it works in any other field, which is why pensions, stockholders, and so forth exist. There is a concept of payment in gratitude for services rendered which exists throughout our society and is why we do not abandon our elderly on ice floes. I believe significant cultural contributions are at least as important as being a founder of Walmart, and deserve reward.

[Ayiekie]

I have a lot of issues with your post, but lets break it down bit by bit.

1) right to make a derivative work.

Why does Artist A have a right to Artist B work if Artists B work was based on it? That is the most natural way for humans to make stories, as an example I'll cite the Arthurian legends and fanfiction.net. The restriction on derivative works is a big problem for the way art has been practiced for most of human history. This is one of my main sticking point with current copyright law.

2) Why should the artist be granted a non economicaly optimal copyright length?

Copyright terms are set by public policy, What criteria would you use aside from being economicaly optimal (ie the benefit to the entire soceity is maximized) for public policy and why? Is it restricted to just copyright terms

3) why only for creative works?

Why do scientists not get paid for their discoveries until well after their death. few people have done as much for the human race as Newton or Pastuer, and yet they don't get a ton of money for their discoveries. Why is it that if Bill gates sells his share in Microsoft his children won't get a share of the profits? It is afterall his lifes work so by your logic they are entiteled to a share.

4) Having works based on the lifetime of the author is unfair.

Someone old and or sick would be at a disadvantage over someone young and healthy because the copyright term would be expected to be much longer for the young person. The shorter the time after death copyright lasts the more pronounced the effect is. But how is that good public policy? What is wrong with a fixed term?

5) Why only their children?

Why not the great grandchildren, for 7 generations? why just children, and what if the artist doesn't have children. Why does the lifetime of the children not matter? What did the children do to deserve to leach of the work of their parent until long after they are dead?

6) why only life + 25 years?

Why 25 and not 20? or 30? or 5? or 500?

1) It is perfectly legal to make derivative work for profit if you attain the rights to do so. If you don't, I believe you should be able to do it for free (though I understand the legal difficulties in making that law, as opposed to now where certain derivative works are legal and others are not). If you don't want to do either, then too bad.
2) Because they deserve it. The benefit to the artist outweighs the purported benefit to society. Incidentally, there is no hard scientific data about the subject so you could kindly stop pretending this is somehow proven rather than economic theorising based on different situations in different countries at different time periods, where you have cherry-picked an opinion that you conveniently happen to agree with. After the last five years, we all should be well aware of the fact that there is no such thing a proven economic theory, especially about something as esoteric as the overall benefit to society of copyright laws of differing lengths.
3) It isn't only for creative works and it is flatly dishonest to suggest it is. For one thing, patents are essentially copyright for inventions. And if Bill Gates does NOT sell his stock (which is analogous to releasing work in the public domain), shockingly, his children do get a share. Indeed, his preferred heirs (and theirs) could theoretically profit from his work forever, which is far more than copyright can do under either current laws or the ones I've suggested.
4) It's unfair to deny an artist the opportunity to help his heirs through life from his work. I'd be fine with a fixed term of something like 100 years, however.
5) Because you have a direct connection to your children (or any other heir) that you do not for your descendants seven generations down. It is not exactly a new or revolutionary legal concept for children and other direct relatives to have legal rights that distant relatives do not.
6) Because it seems a reasonable number, ensuring that even if the artist dies while their heir is in infancy, they will be able to profit from the artist's work until they have reached full adulthood.

[Ayiekie]

Let me note that I haven't abandoned this thread, but am thinking over the points made and why I feel the way I do. If/when I come to some resolution, then I will post a proper reply.

In the mean time, let me point out that copyright was invented not so much to ensure a creator's work stayed his own for decades and decades, but rather to encourage creators (with a period in which they were allowed sole privilege to profit from them) to make works that would after a while enter the public domain for the enrichment of the culture as a whole. Let me repeat that -- copyright was intended to encourage the expansion of the public domain, by a similar mechanism to patents -- an exclusive right to reproduce (and profit) from a work for a long, but not too long, period.

This is still true under copyright law right now. Your argument (and indeed anyone else's that does not advocate the complete eradication of copyright law) hinges on what constitutes ideal values for "encourage" and "long, but not too long".
Because it is a pure economics question, there is no possibility whatsoever at arriving at a definitive answer. Economics is not a hard science (some would argue it's not a science at all, though I wouldn't go that far). You can make a best guess based on data, but nobody here is educated enough in the issue to do that. Therefore your decision is purely a moral one. My morality is to give most benefit of the doubt to those who create content; others, to those who consume it. Others are more in the middle (which does not give their view any particular virtue).

The modern slow mutation of copyright into an eternal protection and an eternal profit stream is a perversion of the original concept of copyright, fostered by corporations that are essentially immortal and far greedier than any individual could be. When Jefferson shaped the first American copyright law, he never imagined that anyone but the individual creator could possibly own the rights to a work. He would have loathed the idea that a company could own a work -- and would want to keep complete control over it in perpetuity. The idea behind copyright was to encourage creators to enrich the culture, not enrich corporate coffers.

Well, first off, I sincerely doubt you have any especial psychic insight into what Jefferson would think of modern copyright law.
Second off, I really couldn't care less what a guy that's been dead for nearly two centuries would think of any sort of modern law, even were I American or living in the United States, neither of which are true. I don't feel the need to consult the ghost of Hammurabi on justice, either.

[Bob Schroeck]

Ayekie, that was uncalled for. I'm not arguing with you -- in fact, I have been reconsidering my views based on some of your arguments. (And Epsilon's as well, to be fair) Random snark flung in my direction like monkey shit at the zoo just because my head popped up again doesn't help your case at all. In fact, it suggests that maybe taking your points seriously was a mistake on my part.

And while you may not give a damn about what Jefferson had in mind when he actually personally designed the initial version of the American copyright system, the intent of the Founding Fathers is a critical consideration for anyone who actually has a real say in what happens in issues like this. Far better they pay attention to what Jefferson thought was good for the country than what Mitch Glazier thinks is good for the RIAA:

The Jeffersonian model of copyright is fundamentally hostile to the needs of [the recording industry]; we are encouraging Congress to ensure that more enlightened, modern concepts of copyright remain in place. -- RIAA lobbyist Mitch Glazier

Or Jack Valenti:

There is something decidedly communistic about the concept of the public domain. For this reason alone it should be abolished. -- Jack Valenti, MPAA

Finally, you said

I don't feel the need to consult the ghost of Hammurabi on justice, either.

I wouldn't attempt to consult his ghost either, but I could do far worse than to consult his work.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[Ayiekie]

I disagree, Bob, and I wasn't being particularly snarky in that post (I was in my reply to you previous to that, and while that was partially because of my reaction to what you said in it I reread it last night and felt it was overly harsh, and for that I apologise). I really do not comprehend the peculiarly American fetish (well, peculiarly American insofar as I'm passingly familiar with several different country's politics, and none seem to share this habit to anywhere near the same degree, but of course that's a small subset of the world's total) for slavishly interpreting the intent of the writer of a law as important rather than the current needs of the society, and I frankly think it is a ludicrous way of thinking. Jefferson was a very intelligent and learned man for his time, but relying on his views to carry any moral weight in the twenty-first century is simply absurd. He held many moral views which would be considered grotesque in the modern era (about Native Americans, for starters), and even if he did not, the simple fact remains that he would not even comprehend the current situation and his views would be very honestly less informed than that of Joe Internet.

Also, to repoint out what I already said to Rob - I have no affiliation with the RIAA, do not espouse their views, have never referred to them, and could not possibly care less what they think. If Mitch Glazier lobbies for the RIAA to take the first-born children of copyright law violators to train and raise as their elite corps of assassins to spread fear and terror amongst those who would download music, it does not have the slightest iota of bearing on the argument (even less so since the argument at the moment is primarily about printed material). So why bring it up? Not only I am demonstrably not in agreement with their views, it's not as if this is an either/or situation. It seems as if you and Rob were trying to taint my position by (spurious) association, which is hardly fair.

[CattyNebulart]

1) It is perfectly legal to make derivative work for profit if you attain the rights to do so. If you don't, I believe you should be able to do it for free (though I understand the legal difficulties in making that law, as opposed to now where certain derivative works are legal and others are not).

I don't fully understand the difficulty in being allowed to do it for free, that is what's happening in spain.
i think you are conflating nice and the law, it is nice to ask for permission before making a derative work, but having that backed up with the full force of law is a bit much. It's not nice to be an asshole but it is perfectly legal.
And it is currently allowed in the US at least to make parodies, otherwise wierd al would be in deep trouble. but that is because when it was written the current system was not expected and it was expected most people could get permision by just asking nicely (and possibly revenue sharing). Allowing something like that nowadays would be a nightmare with a multimillion dollar ip lawsuit waiting to happen. But few people want parodies made of them and so that is explicity legal, because it was expected people would say no.

2) Because they deserve it. The benefit to the artist outweighs the purported benefit to society. Incidentally, there is no hard scientific data about the subject so you could kindly stop pretending this is somehow proven rather than economic theorising based on different situations in different countries at different time periods, where you have cherry-picked an opinion that you conveniently happen to agree with.

I have no problem quoting from scholars who happen to argue that the ideal copyright term should be infinity, I just happen to think that the scholars arguing for that have missed something or are optimizing the wrong thing. the most compelling argument for potentially infinite length copyright terms I have read involved a case study on mikey mouse, and the basic argument was that the company should retain copyright while they spend money on it.

If you can find a peer reviewed paper supporting your position I would be more than happy to take a look at it and think it over.

After the last five years, we all should be well aware of the fact that there is no such thing a proven economic theory, especially about something as esoteric as the overall benefit to society of copyright laws of differing lengths.

Economics as a science relies heavily on mathematical models, which don't precisely fit the real world. In the case of the financial crisis it was known that some of the models where a bit of, but they where also propreitary and highly secret, but everyone was essentially using the same flawed model. Add in fraud and having the system very highly leveraged (Which any economist could have told you was a bad idea from a system perspective but made some sense from an individual organizations perspective.)... yeah problems, the good news is that this will give a lot of information to eoomist to better refine macroscale models.

There are predictions about what a shorter copyright term would do, and until we run the experiment it's hard to say for sure if they are correct. For what it's worth by and large the same models are being used, the main disagreements being on how people value certain things, eg the inputs to the models. there is no real consensus, but few argue for anything longer than 15 years, and most are in the 6 to 2 years range.

I have read several of the peer-reviewed papers in this area, which I imagine is more than you have done. Of course the way to settle this would be to limit copyright to 50 years, which would be a significant shortening, and then look at what happens over the next 10 years. That should give plenty of data to come to some better conclusions.

3) It isn't only for creative works and it is flatly dishonest to suggest it is.

unfortunately the united states copytight law disagrees with you.

(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

Even if i wrote the Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, but that wouldn't give me copyright over newtons laws, just over that particular book (well the fact that it was in public domain etc is a bit of a problem but...)

For one thing, patents are essentially copyright for inventions.

if copyright worked like pattents no-body would have copyright anymore, and if patents worked like copyright there would be no entertainment industry. They are different no matter how often people try to conflate them.

And if Bill Gates does NOT sell his stock (which is analogous to releasing work in the public domain), shockingly, his children do get a share.

nooo, selling stock is very different from releasing it to the public domain, releasing it in the public domain is closer to distributing the stock to everybody in the whole world. there is no good real world anaglogy because in the real world the cost is mostly in the thing, not the design. If I give you my phone you have a phone but I don't, but if i give you a copy of my phone we both have a phone, which also raises the worth of the phone I now have since I can call more people.

6) Because it seems a reasonable number, ensuring that even if the artist dies while their heir is in infancy, they will be able to profit from the artist's work until they have reached full adulthood.

If I die while my children are in their infancy why are my children not taken care of until they are adults? Artists should do it the same way other people do it, by leaving them money and their property, which would include unexpired copyrights, which should last a fixed amount of time so those copyrights don't just suddenly drop in value.

---

I imagine with your arguments so far you also have an issue with compulsory licenses?
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."

[robkelk]

Yes, if someone copies a statue or a book or a song without permission, then they're breaking copyright law unless the artwork is in the public domain. Conversely, the person who does hold the copyright on the statue or book or song is entitled to make such copies.

I still haven't seen a convincing argument why someone who creates a song should have more protection than someone who creates a statue. (Before anyone brings it up, "that's the way we've always done it" is not a convincing argument.)

Because that's the way the sale was made, frankly.
If I make a really, really pretty statue that everyone wants to see I could sell it to a museum and demand in the sale that I get $1 for every person that see it in the museum. I would be in my rights to demand that kind of contract. The museum would be in their rights to refuse. Similarly if I wanted to I could sell my song for a flat fee and allow any broadcaster to put it on for free for the rest of time.
There is no difference between the two, except for that created by you.

If every museum so far has refused to sign such a contract, then we're back to my observation that two types of artists are treated differently. If not, then my position has been undermined. So... Has such a contract ever been signed, or is this just a hypothetical case?

Let's say I own a house but no longer want to live on it, and would like to make some money off this house. I can sell the house outright, getting a single lump sum payment for the house. That is cool. Or I could rent the house, recieving a payment per month of use by anyone who inhabits it. That is also cool. The difference is which I would prefer to do, but the underlying laws of real estate do not change.

If you rent the house to someone, you then need to maintain it and keep it fit for habitation. You're still doing work to earn that rent money.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[robkelk]

I find your arguing somewhat disingenuous given your previous comments on the issue,

I don't know why, since it's based in the same premise as my previous comments.

Because your actual position, unless it's changed, is that artists should not be doing art to make a living. That is what you said the last time we discussed the matter. Thus I do not have any particular belief that you are arguing in good faith, or, to be more generous, that we come from even remotely compatible starting assumptions.

That's what I believe should be the case, yes. But we aren't discussing what should be, we're discussing what is.

But music is, by its very nature, ephemeral. It's only when recorded that it becomes as lasting as a sculpture.

So what?

However, a sculpture can be used as a form around which a mold is made, and the mold used to mass-produce the sculpture. Likewise, a song can captured in a master recording, and the master recording used to mass-produce the song. (Yes, not every sculpture becomes a form for a mold, and not every song becomes a master recording for a record.) I don't see how this argument is even valid, let alone relevant.

And, uh, the molds are protected by copyright, which has been pointed out to you.

By somebody using the handle "robkelk", in fact... Oh, wait - that's me.

So... what's your point? What are you driving at here, exactly?

Perhaps you missed it:

Allowing for this behaviour makes the two types of artistry more directly comparable.

No, I see that you didn't miss it - in fact, you replied to it.

If I hadn't drawn the comparison as closely as possible, it's a good bet that somebody would have said the two artforms aren't comparable. I did this to stifle that complaint.

The RIAA would have us believe that more popular songs are worth more money, since they ask for damages based on number of downloads of a song.

I really couldn't care less what the RIAA would "have you believe". Why is that relevant? Am I the RIAA? Am I associated with them? Have I espoused a belief in their position on the matter? Have I even brought them up?

You said:

No, I don't see why popularity makes a difference.

This is an example of why popularity makes a difference. Just because you don't like the RIAA doesn't make it any less of an example.

Recording a song changes it from an ephemeral artwork to a lasting artwork, just as sculpting a statue in ice changes the statue from a lasting artwork to an ephemeral artwork. Allowing for this behaviour makes the two types of artistry more directly comparable.

Except they still aren't, because one is a physical object that cannot be perfectly replicated, and one is not a physical object and can be. You should be familiar with this concept, since it is the one ever-so-tediously quoted to explain why pirating things isn't really stealing even though it is illegally taking something you have no right to.

And I've never used that argument to differentiate "piracy" and "theft". Instead, I've pointed at actual laws.

Am I the RIAA these people? Am I associated with them? Have I espoused a belief in their position on the matter? Have I even brought them up?

Why?

I explained that already. The creators create the product. The public is already rewarded by having the privilege of consuming it.
Why do you think the public deserves to supersede the artist and gain as much right over their work, during the artist's lifetime, as the artist has?

Because someone in the public has paid the artist for that work. If you want creation of artwork to be treated as a business, then treat it as a business - no half-measures.

And I do not see the need to further reward the artists for doing nothing. They've been paid once already for that work. (Unless, as you pointed out, they chose to release their work into the public domain - but that's their choice.)

And yet, that isn't how it works in any other field, which is why pensions, stockholders, and so forth exist.

I see you've never actually had a pension or owned stock. Pensions are paid for by the people who expect to draw money from the pensions, either directly or as a deduction from their paychecks - they're savings for retirement, not a gift for previous work that's already been paid for. Stock is an example (not the only one) of people loaning money to a company - the company pays for the privilege of using that money, and the stockholders get their money back when they sell the stock. (Unless the company goes bankrupt, but the rate of return is adjusted to take that into account.)

There is a concept of payment in gratitude for services rendered which exists throughout our society and is why we do not abandon our elderly on ice floes. I believe significant cultural contributions are at least as important as being a founder of Walmart, and deserve reward.

However, "payment in gratitude for services rendered" is customarily made once per service rendered, not repeatedly. There are exceptions - I'm asking (again) why this is one of them.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Epsilon]

If every museum so far has refused to sign such a contract, then we're back to my observation that two types of artists are treated differently. If not, then my position has been undermined. So... Has such a contract ever been signed, or is this just a hypothetical case?

I don't know. I do know that, for example, a person who has a work of art in his private collection occasionally loans such works to museums (sometimes for fees, sometimes not) for limited display.

If you rent the house to someone, you then need to maintain it and keep
it fit for habitation. You're still doing work to earn that rent money.

And if I want to sell copies of my music I have to advertise, create those copies, distribute them to stores and/or maintain download servers, process payments, etc etc.
-------------------
Epsilon

[Epsilon]

Nope, trademark is quite different and it works differently. some things are both trademarked and copyrighted (Mickey Mouse), just trademarked (3, the phone company forinstance) or just copyrighted (Lord of the Rings).

Copyright gives you the right to control derivative works, which is why for instance fanfiction.net is possibly illegal (definitly operating deep in the grey zone of the law).

Not quite true.
The copyright law does, in fact, give the copyright holder the right to control derivative works. However it defines derivative work as:

"copyright"...includes the sole right

(a) to produce, reproduce, perform or publish any translation of the work,

(b) in the case of a dramatic work, to convert it into a novel or other non-dramatic work,

(c) in the case of a novel or other non-dramatic work, or of
an artistic work, to convert it into a dramatic work, by way of
performance in public or otherwise,

(d) in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work, to
make any sound recording, cinematograph film or other contrivance by
means of which the work may be mechanically reproduced or performed,

(e) in the case of any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic
work, to reproduce, adapt and publicly present the work as a
cinematographic work

So basically translating, adapting to a movie, play, recording etc is all includes the rigths of derivative works.
Noteably the derivative works does NOT include pastiches, parodies, sequels and so on. You are right to say that these areas are grey areas. They are not covered by copyright law technically. Only if the work is sufficiently un-original is it covered by derivative works. However the copyright holder may be able to sue you under these laws or may not. So writing a fanfic may be a derivative work if it contains insufficient creativity, and it may not be.
----------------
Epsilon

[CattyNebulart]

Not quite true.

It was a severe oversimplification, however.

Noteably the derivative works does NOT include pastiches, parodies, sequels and so on.

Sequels are usually held to be a non-exempt derivative work. In fact the broadness of derivative work is the problem, if you make a neat sci-fi universe (say star wars) then to publish a novel set in it I legally need the permission of the rights holder, and it gets even worse with crossovers. A galaxy spanning empire with arrowhead shaped ships an active rebelion, and hyperspace travel and a few other space opera cliches would probably found to be infringing. Notably Japan has a very different system especially when it comes to this issue which makes for a big problem for some licensed anime and games. Hence why we will never see super robot wars in the USA.

It doesn't even matter if our hypothetical star wars author avoids the use of the trademarked starwars and no jedi or sith show up, derived can stretch quite a bit. Add to that the insane cost of a copyright lawsuit, and the even more insane cost of losing such a suit and few would be willing to risk it.
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]

 A galaxy spanning empire with arrowhead shaped ships an active rebelion, and hyperspace travel and a few other space opera cliches would probably found to be infringing.

I severly doubt that, since I can think of several sci-fi series which steal heavily from Star Wars. Not to mention several fantasy series.

It doesn't even matter if our hypothetical star wars author avoids the
use of the trademarked starwars and no jedi or sith show up, derived can
stretch quite a bit. Add to that the insane cost of a copyright
lawsuit, and the even more insane cost of losing such a suit and few
would be willing to risk it.

Overzealous copyright enforcement of this type can bite copyright holders in the ass as well. Remember the scifi/fantasy author who was forced to pay out to a fanfiction writer for stealing ideas from the fanfic writer?
It's basically an area that is very poorly covered in law at the moment.
------------
Epsilon