Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Friday April 24 2015, @02:23PM   Printer-friendly
from the useful-progress dept.

It's election season in the UK, and the Green Party's policy document has been coming under scrutiny recently. In it is a desire to reduce copyright term to 14 years (not life + 14 years, but 14 years from publication).

Unsurprisingly, this has received a bit of a backlash from various parties.

There's no chance the Green Party will form the next government, so this is all academic, but is this a sensible idea? Are people overreacting?

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by hash14 on Friday April 24 2015, @10:59PM

    by hash14 (1102) on Friday April 24 2015, @10:59PM (#174876)

    That's because the cost of reproducing the work is 0.

    In the digital age, music is just a form of information, and information is an infinite commodity. It's just an idea or an expression which has no physical form, so it's infinitely replicable. The whole notion of copyright is to take something infinitely replicable and create an artificial scarcity. For anyone who understands how real things work, this economic model is utterly moronic.

    A viable system should instead compensate artists before they release their work. Fans could instead pay artists to produce their work (ie. prior to when it is made or released) to incentivise and sustain the artists. Once the artist releases the work (ie. when the cat is out of the bag, proverbially speaking), there is no sensible physical obligation to compensate (the work is really nothing more than a number). Of course, there's no reason why people can't _choose_ to do so, but there is no physical obligation.

    And in fact, this is exactly how research works. Governments, organizations, foundations, etc. support academics to do their work knowing that there is a value in the final product. But no one would pay for you to do the exact same research to reach the exact same conclusion. Another great example is kickstarter, where people support a product _while_ it's being made, rather than after once it has already lots all of its value.

    So why shouldn't artists follow the same model? Well, this is the MAFIAA we're talking about. It turns out that their obsolete model does work when you can bribe major governments to legalize racketeering through laws like the DMCA and "trade partnerships" like TPP, TTIP/TAFTA, and others. But anyone with a brain can see how stupid it is to create laws which criminalize numbers.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24 2015, @11:21PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24 2015, @11:21PM (#174881)

    So why shouldn't artists follow the same model?

    Because the arts are something whose value is entirely subjective, and especially for music, bands change their style all the time, becoming better or usually turning to shit after 2 or 3 albums; who wants to fund a band they've never heard anything from, and which band would want to be forced to only perform the same kind of music over their entire careers, with no room for experimentation or maturation? And even if you do pre-fund, its likely you'll feel ripped off because their music wasn't to your tastes. With scientific research, its beneficial to everyone no matter what the result, and it almost always provides clues for what further research should tackle.

    • (Score: 2) by hash14 on Saturday April 25 2015, @12:25AM

      by hash14 (1102) on Saturday April 25 2015, @12:25AM (#174897)

      With scientific research, its beneficial to everyone no matter what the result, and it almost always provides clues for what further research should tackle.

      I'm not sure I agree with this - lots of research ends in dead ends and gets nowhere. There are of course lots of interesting side results with other works build upon, but the same is true in the arts industries.

      As for the rest of your comment, I feel that they can work exactly the same way:

      Earning recognition:
      Research: new scientists train under more experienced ones
      Art: artists of all forms collaborate all the time

      Receiving grants:
      Research: authors build credibility based on their previous works; both the grants and the work are small to start, but by building reputation, researchers get larger grants and more leeway to work on more significant experiments and publications
      Art: a film-marker might produce a short prior to releasing a full-feature film, and a photographer could produce some simple shots prior to being funded for a more expensive excursion. Musicians produce short demos prior to producing LPs, EPs, albums, and so on - I think there are analogues in any artistic field you could think of

      Prefunding might make you feel ripped off:
      Research: grant awardees must provide updates to maintain their grants, as well as financial reports to show that they're using the money appropriately
      Art: why not do the same? no great work is produced in an instant.

      Experimentation:
      Research: scientists don't usually get a blank check to do whatever they want either. However, they still make great discoveries by accident and again, many interesting results come out of side projects
      Art: Pretty much the same in this case. Substitute doing research with making music or writing short stories. Ideas come naturally from doing the work in both fields.

  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Friday April 24 2015, @11:32PM

    by frojack (1554) on Friday April 24 2015, @11:32PM (#174884) Journal

    The whole notion of copyright is to take something infinitely replicable and create an artificial scarcity. For anyone who understands how real things work, this economic model is utterly moronic.

    NO.
    That is emphatically NOT the notion. YOU clearly do not understand the economic model.

    The model isn't some conspiracy. Its really very simple. Its stated right up front in the constitution.

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

    There is nothing about scarcity there.
    Authors and inventors have no incentive to make their work scarce.
    Instead, they are given the right to reproduce their works, and make money from their work.

    The model is not one of instant seizure of any work of an author or inventor. It is one of fair compensation for their efforts, by making a little money from EACH sale.

    YOUR model is one of instant seizure, simply because you can.

    A viable system should instead compensate artists before they release their work.

    I'm sorry, son, you are late to the party. The world is not going to totally redefine the economic model just to suite you. Get over yourself!
    You're a thief. Face it. You just want to take, and you haven't the slightest intention of compensating the artists or the author either before or after they create something. They could spend 6 months writing a book, after a life time of education in the field, and you still think its yours for the taking.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 2) by hash14 on Saturday April 25 2015, @12:07AM

      by hash14 (1102) on Saturday April 25 2015, @12:07AM (#174891)

      To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

      Even the intent as stated in the constitution is fallacious. What exactly is an exclusive right? What does that mean? How can you attach value to something that has no value? Can I copyright 142857? Then anyone who does division by 7 will have to owe me a royalty. But English students still have to pay for books that are just as easy to copy as a 6-digit number.

      YOU clearly do not understand the economic model.

      The quote you provided from the constitution is for a legal model, not an economic one.

      Instead, they are given the right to reproduce their works, and make money from their work.

      Impractical. Maybe that was useful in the days of the printing press, but once again, there's no physical value in reproducibility in today's world. Nowadays, it all just stems from an artificial legal construct. Do you really think an artificial legal construct is a better means than a real physical one?

      Authors and inventors have no incentive to make their work scarce.

      But they do anyway. Geoblocking is an example - an absurd practice which is unenforceable in a world where information is allowed to flow freely.

      The model is not one of instant seizure of any work of an author or inventor. It is one of fair compensation for their efforts, by making a little money from EACH sale.

      This I understand - I'm just saying that it's unenforceable.

      YOUR model is one of instant seizure, simply because you can.

      No, it isn't.

      I'm sorry, son, you are late to the party.

      Sounds much like how the MAFIAA does things: "It has always been this way, so we'll never change."

      I think my model is better - more practical, and more economically sustainable for producers. Your model doesn't even support artists while they're creating. If they spend their entire lives working on something which ends up being a huge flop, they've wasted their lives and are left with nothing. Mine even supports them while they're working regardless of whether the final product is well received or not.

      The world is not going to totally redefine the economic model just to suite you. Get over yourself!

      This isn't a rebuttal. The rest of your post is ad hominem and to be frank, absurdly immature. I know that I shouldn't respond to ad hominems, but I do hope you'll notice the little star next to my username - if I were as you describe, do you think I would donate to a site where I could (and many others do) get everything for free? No, I support it both because I like it and because it supports the public good. Just like many other organizations, though I cannot prove those to you. Regardless, I think the facts I present contradict a personality that you describe.

      Finally, you didn't bother responding to my suggestions to how the system can be improved, so I suppose that you have no response to that.

      • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday April 25 2015, @11:18PM

        by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Saturday April 25 2015, @11:18PM (#175191) Homepage Journal

        How can you attach value to something that has no value?

        If you think art, music, and literature have no value I feel sorry for you.

        What exactly is an exclusive right? What does that mean? How can you attach value to something that has no value? Can I copyright 142857? Then anyone who does division by 7 will have to owe me a royalty.

        You have no concept of how copyright works, kid. If you saw my laughter you'd be embarrassed.

        --
        mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
        • (Score: 2) by hash14 on Sunday April 26 2015, @05:58AM

          by hash14 (1102) on Sunday April 26 2015, @05:58AM (#175280)

          If you think art, music, and literature have no value I feel sorry for you.

          Strawman fallacy - there is value in the art, music and literature (hence why I'm actually trying to think of a reasonable way to compensate their creators, rather than relying on the obsolete systems built around around "intellectual property"). But there is no value in their digital representations because they are of infinite supply.

          You have no concept of how copyright works, kid. If you saw my laughter you'd be embarrassed.

          Enlighten me then.

          First, the Constitution states that "the authors and inventors have _exclusive right_" to their works - to me, this is an uninterpretably vague statement. What exactly is this fantasmal right that they have?

          Second, the purpose of my analogy is to demonstrate: if copyright can be imposed on a digital file (or a patent on an algorithm/implementation, a trademark on a .png), then you have effectively just censored what is nothing more than a number. And you are not permitted to share these numbers or use them without permission or in a way that the "author" doesn't like. So why shouldn't I be able to do the same for other numerical operations on numbers? I'll just create a file with my number in it, say it's my "property" and take collections from people who use it without my permission.

          The more I think about it, the more I feel that people arguing in favour of ownership of digital data (or more basically, just information) are severely out of touch with reality. Nothing makes physical sense in a system where ideas and information and numbers can be restricted from being shared, expressed and thought about.

          • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Monday April 27 2015, @03:13PM

            by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Monday April 27 2015, @03:13PM (#175730) Homepage Journal

            there is value in the art, music and literature (hence why I'm actually trying to think of a reasonable way to compensate their creators, rather than relying on the obsolete systems built around around "intellectual property"). But there is no value in their digital representations because they are of infinite supply.

            I certainly agree with that, which is why I give electronic versions of my books away for free. I don't think there's any monetary value in digits. They were mentioning on KSHE this morning that Alice Cooper postulated that the rise in vinyl sales were because "people were tired of buying air." He may be right; I've never "bought" any digital work that didn't come in physical form and the only way I will is if I get stupid.

            BTW, if you like rock and roll, KSHE plays six full albums in their entirety every Sunday night. Capturing the internet stream is trivial (it's built into Windows but disabled and hidden). Monday is "burn CDs day" for me. I have nothing but disdain for those who only sell air.

            Interestingly, I put a version of Mars, Ho on Amazon as a $2 e'book as an experiment. More people have bought hardcover copies, most have bought paperbacks which kind of backs up Cooper's theory somewhat. Of course, far more people download free versions, just like most bibliophiles have read far more library books than they've bought.

            Reading and listening to music has always been free. I'm disgusted by people who now want to monetize it.

            --
            mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by melikamp on Saturday April 25 2015, @12:10AM

      by melikamp (1886) on Saturday April 25 2015, @12:10AM (#174892) Journal

      Authors and inventors have no incentive to make their work scarce.

      You can quote the US Constitution all you want, but please understand it has nothing to do with economics. I think GP understands this economic model better than you do. In USA, as well as pretty much anywhere else in the world, authors and inventors have no incentive to keep their copyright in the first place, because the chances of them making any kind of cash from art are miniscule. So the beginning artists do in fact pre-sell their copyrights, and inventors go to work for hire, so that all this intellectual non-property ends up in the pockets of giant corporations, who are the only ones capable of advertizing and waiting for several years before they can get the return on this investment. And while they are waiting, these corporations troll the court to stop sharing and lobby your legislators for more censorship. This is how copyright actually works.

      Instead, they are given the right to reproduce their works, and make money from their work.

      No, they are given exclusive rights to reproduce their works, which means they have a legal instrument allowing them to censor everyone else. The only application of the copyright law in court is to forbid sharing: to create the artificial scarcity the GP was talking about. The "incentive" is irrelevant because the actual scarcity is the only visible, provable outcome. That copyright somehow improves that rate at which new art is created is simply make-belief. All the studies done so far have shown that copyright monopolies may be affecting the kind of art being created, but not the quantity or the quality.

      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday April 25 2015, @12:37AM

        by frojack (1554) on Saturday April 25 2015, @12:37AM (#174901) Journal

        to create the artificial scarcity the GP was talking about.

        The opposite of scarce is not FREE.

        Just because there is a price, does not mean something is scarce. It merely means someone has to spent time and effort to provide it for you, so you don't have to lift a finger. Those people don't work for free, and I suspect you don't either.

        You want the 27000 copies of an artist's work? Pay for them.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday April 28 2015, @01:01AM

          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday April 28 2015, @01:01AM (#175914)

          Those people don't work for free, and I suspect you don't either.

          They don't work for free, which is why they should ask for money for performing a service. The real problem begins when they try to tell others how to use their own equipment to copy and transfer data, and unleash government thugs to enforce their little monopoly.

          You want the 27000 copies of an artist's work? Pay for them.

          You realize that computers will make copies no matter what, right? Apparently you expect the author/artist to be paid whenever a copy is made, but that is simply insane.

          And this mentality is doomed to fail, anyway. In the Age of Information, trying to place restrictions on copying is a hopeless endeavor, as evidenced by all the websites in existence that have pretty much everything available for free.

  • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday April 25 2015, @11:14PM

    by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Saturday April 25 2015, @11:14PM (#175189) Homepage Journal

    In the digital age, music is just a form of information, and information is an infinite commodity. It's just an idea or an expression which has no physical form, so it's infinitely replicable.

    Not just infinitely replicable, but infinitely replicable at zero cost. That's what has changed. Producing and stamping an LP was an expensive proposition. Printing a book still is.

    The whole notion of copyright is to take something infinitely replicable and create an artificial scarcity.

    No, it isn't. Copyrights are to encourage creative people to create. Without copyright, NOBODY is going to buy your manuscript because if they can get their hands on a copy it's theirs, and even creative people have to eat.

    The young USA learned the hard way. At first, foreign works were in the public domain in the US, so American authors simply couldn't get published, since all the British works were free for the publishers.

    A viable system should instead compensate artists before they release their work. Fans could instead pay artists to produce their work (ie. prior to when it is made or released) to incentivise and sustain the artists.

    I don't buy records from a band I've never heard before, and I don't buy books from authors I've never read before. Do you? If so, IMO you're really weird and not very smart. How is a young musician or author supposed to get noticed under such a system?

    So why shouldn't artists follow the same model? Well, this is the MAFIAA we're talking about.

    That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about independent artists, musicians, songwriters, and authors. Notice you never see an indie artist suing for "piracy"?

    The only viable model is being strangled by the MAFIAA's greed. Back when Napster was in full force, the RIAA cokeheads thought nobody would buy CDs any more since you could download an MP3, and besides that they saw a way to get money for absolutely nothing (typical cokehead) and started "selling" MP3s. Had they not been so greedy as to slicing up the golden goose, they should have touted the advantages of physical media and used digital as advertising.

    --
    mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
    • (Score: 2) by hash14 on Sunday April 26 2015, @06:54AM

      by hash14 (1102) on Sunday April 26 2015, @06:54AM (#175288)

      Not just infinitely replicable, but infinitely replicable at zero cost. That's what has changed. Producing and stamping an LP was an expensive proposition. Printing a book still is.

      Reproducing a book in a digital form is also zero cost. I suppose that's a finer point that I've been overlooking. There is a cost in recording the digital format (whether it's an audio, image, video, text, or other type of file). But once it has been digitized, the replicability is zero cost.

      The whole notion of copyright is to take something infinitely replicable and create an artificial scarcity.

      No, it isn't. Copyrights are to encourage creative people to create. Without copyright, NOBODY is going to buy your manuscript because if they can get their hands on a copy it's theirs, and even creative people have to eat.

      Not true if you compensate them before the cost has been eliminated.

      The young USA learned the hard way. At first, foreign works were in the public domain in the US, so American authors simply couldn't get published, since all the British works were free for the publishers.

      I don't fully understand what this is supposed to demonstrate beyond the fact that unequal treatment makes it harder for one group to compete against another. If anything, this almost seems like a tariff favouring British authors over American ones. Besides, people get tired of old works after a while and want new ones which are more contemporary as well. So I don't think artists would have to compete too hard against their previous works if they were all in the public domain.

      And I can also tell you that it works the other way too. Why did the US have such explosive growth in the industrial revolution? The water-powered mill wasn't developed or patented in the US, but they did manage to utilize it for some pretty massive growth. I think this is a strong argument of the progress that can be achieved when we remove artificial legal barriers. How might we extend it to copyright? Well, artists could remix music freely (currently, that's a very dangerous thing to do because proving fair use in a court is cripplingly expensive), or writers could freely create fan fiction (another area where there are perpetually hovering legal threats).

      I don't buy records from a band I've never heard before, and I don't buy books from authors I've never read before. Do you? If so, IMO you're really weird and not very smart. How is a young musician or author supposed to get noticed under such a system?

      Have you ever been to an event or a bar where there's a band playing in the back? Have you ever been to a music festival with both established and upcoming bands? Have you ever watched a movie short? Do you think artists just walk into the studio and lay out an album having never produced a single demo or LP in their careers? Have you ever read an excerpt from an author that piqued your interest and made you want to find more from them (and possibly support them in creating that)?

      I'd say that things already work this way. Publishers invest in artists to produce their work - but they release the full work before they try to recoup their expenses, and then their product has had its value eliminated. Does that make sense to you?

      So why shouldn't artists follow the same model? Well, this is the MAFIAA we're talking about.

      That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about independent artists, musicians, songwriters, and authors. Notice you never see an indie artist suing for "piracy"?

      The only viable model is being strangled by the MAFIAA's greed. Back when Napster was in full force, the RIAA cokeheads thought nobody would buy CDs any more since you could download an MP3, and besides that they saw a way to get money for absolutely nothing (typical cokehead) and started "selling" MP3s. Had they not been so greedy as to slicing up the golden goose, they should have touted the advantages of physical media and used digital as advertising.

      I agree on all these points - the content industries are failing to innovate. They have ever since they found their first pot of gold. It's also worth noting that pretty much all movies and music have been total rehashes with different faces since the late 90s and early 2000's. But that's tangential.

      On point, I don't think sustainable innovation in a regime of censorship is practical, especially in a digital age. Hence I think there needs to be a move to adopt a system that's more physically robust. I have no idea if it will work if it doesn't happen, but I can tell you why no one has respect for the system we're stuck with today.

      And I feel that a non-censorship system works better. Putting everything in the public domain makes it easier to discover works so artists can more easily gain both inspiration and notoriety. Services like Napster probably promoted discovery of new music, experimentation and fusion of new styles, and newfound recognition and appreciation for the artists (incentivising them to create even more!). The opportunity to take advantage of this cultural explosion was there, but instead it was smothered not just by the existing powers but by public opinion that they were doing something immoral!

      And I feel that a pre-funding system works better as well. I'm sure that there are lots of artists and authors who give up on their hopes because they're not going to get compensated until they complete their work. How are they going to sustain themselves /before/ they manage to hit the big time? What happens if their work is a great flop instead and they get nothing out of it? And let's suppose that they do release their work to success - what's going to incentivise them to create more, rather than resting of the laurels of their previous work knowing that they can cash in on that for the rest of their lives (albeit at diminishing returns with the progress of time)?

      We can continue doing things the same way forever, but we've never had an open-minded public debate as to whether copyright really is a smart, sensible and effective model for promoting the arts and sustaining those who produce them. I don't see evidence that it has helped - I only see evidence that it harms the arts, the audience, and ultimately the artists. I think there has to be a better way.

      • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Monday April 27 2015, @03:35PM

        by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Monday April 27 2015, @03:35PM (#175743) Homepage Journal

        Reproducing a book in a digital form is also zero cost.

        Indeed, which is why I give the electronic versions of my work away for free.

        Not true if you compensate them before the cost has been eliminated.

        Who's going to do the compensating? Without copyrights, Doubleday would pay for a book to be written, but once published all the other publishers get a free ride. Nobody's going to pay anybody.

        I don't think sustainable innovation in a regime of censorship is practical, especially in a digital age.

        I agree, it isn't sustainable for digital works or file sharing. I'm of the opinion that digits shouldn't be covered by copyright, and in fact earlier copyright laws said the work had to be "in tangible form." Bits aren't tangible!

        Copyright is there to protect "content creators" as they're called today not from consumers, but from publishers. The rich idiots at the MAFIAA want to turn that completely around. I have no need to be protected from you, but I do need to be protected from Doubleday.

        And I feel that a non-censorship system works better. Putting everything in the public domain makes it easier to discover works so artists can more easily gain both inspiration and notoriety.

        So how are they supposed to pay the rent? Only folks like me who don't have to work could produce much of anything. And what you've written is why the founding Americans put "for limited times" in the constitution.

        And let's suppose that they do release their work to success - what's going to incentivise them to create more, rather than resting of the laurels of their previous work knowing that they can cash in on that for the rest of their lives (albeit at diminishing returns with the progress of time)?

        Greed. The wise know that there's never enough money no matter how rich you are, so they're content with what they have and simply enjoy life rather than chasing rainbows looking for the leprechaun's gold - but there are few of us like that.

        But what you pointed out s why the constitution says "for limited times" and is one of many reasons to shorten copyright terms. But 14 years is too short, twenty extendable to 30 or at most 40 would be IMO ideal.

        I only see evidence that it harms the arts, the audience, and ultimately the artists. I think there has to be a better way.

        The better way is to shorten copyrights drastically (life plus ninety five years is obscene) and make non-commercial sharing legal.

        --
        mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
        • (Score: 2) by hash14 on Monday April 27 2015, @10:50PM

          by hash14 (1102) on Monday April 27 2015, @10:50PM (#175888)

          Who's going to do the compensating? Without copyrights, Doubleday would pay for a book to be written, but once published all the other publishers get a free ride. Nobody's going to pay anybody.

          I would suggest that Doubleday not publish the book until their costs have been recouped and they're satisfied with their margins. Think of it like a Kickstarter model - the creators set a funding goal (or multiple tiered goals), and when the goal(s) is/are met they are expected to release a product they they promised for reaching that goal.

          To use a concrete example, suppose a book author has a franchise - the author has published x books and to release the x+1 book, he's requesting a goal of y dollars. If you want to put a publisher in the middle, then the publisher requests z dollars, gives y to the author, and keeps z-y as revenue. Then net result is that that the audience pays z, the author gets y, and the publisher gets z-y.

          All I'm suggesting is this: take all the money which (under a copyright model) is supposed to come in after the publication, and provide it before. And I've stated in other posts why people will continue paying for it, but to reiterate, they could provide samples, marketing, and so on. Also, publishers would be able to use their revenue to support new creators that they think have potential, resolving the issue of how new creators can get started and develop a name for themselves (somewhat analogous to how professional sports teams reinvest in youth leagues to develop talented individuals who have future potential to play in the professional leagues).

          And let's suppose that they do release their work to success - what's going to incentivise them to create more, rather than resting of the laurels of their previous work knowing that they can cash in on that for the rest of their lives (albeit at diminishing returns with the progress of time)?

          Greed. The wise know that there's never enough money no matter how rich you are, so they're content with what they have and simply enjoy life rather than chasing rainbows looking for the leprechaun's gold - but there are few of us like that.

          I agree with that. But I don't think copyright does as much to promote an artist to work on his next work.

          And I wouldn't completely buy an argument that authors need to compete against their previous public domain works. I don't see people rewatching their old favourite episodes of today's popular television shows, and I think the same would go for movies, books, music, and other such domains.

          • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday April 30 2015, @04:08PM

            by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Thursday April 30 2015, @04:08PM (#177137) Homepage Journal

            So how is a writer to get that first book published?

            --
            mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
            • (Score: 2) by hash14 on Wednesday May 06 2015, @05:24AM

              by hash14 (1102) on Wednesday May 06 2015, @05:24AM (#179397)

              A few ideas...

              • Publish the first few pages, as much as it takes to grab the readers' interest
              • Publish a short blurb to give the readers a brief summary of the work
              • "Investment funding" from a publisher that sees potential in the artist (analogous to a venture capitalist investment) - the support from the readers may not recoup the total investment of the first work, but the publishers may see potential that future works would turn a net gain
              • Start with a smaller work or subset of works (short stories, etc.) to build a credential base
              • Seek the review of respected critics to promote the work

              I understand that the industry doesn't work this way already, but I don't see why this couldn't be a sustainable, viable model.

        • (Score: 2) by hash14 on Monday April 27 2015, @11:05PM

          by hash14 (1102) on Monday April 27 2015, @11:05PM (#175890)

          Copyright is there to protect "content creators" as they're called today not from consumers, but from publishers. The rich idiots at the MAFIAA want to turn that completely around. I have no need to be protected from you, but I do need to be protected from Doubleday.

          Now I understand your argument.

          I just think that this is where a scheme like copyright fails. The whole, "don't violate our terms for this work, else you will be sued" type model is only effective if you have the money to sue. When you consider how expensive a lawsuit can be, there's really not much value to be earned by launching a lawsuit. In a copyright model, you will never be able to evade the fact that the system favours those who are wealthy enough to afford lawsuits, while it basically hangs out to dry those who aren't.

          In fact, let's be more concrete - let's suppose an author starts abusing the terms of a contract that they have with one of their authors. They can do it as long as they know that it would be more expensive for the author to take legal action to stop them (even if you have, say, a coalition group that would protect authors from these types of practises).. It's just like how the patent trolling model works. And this is another reason why I don't think a model that can only be enforced in a courtroom is viable - because of how courts and lawsuits work[1] (and the expenses and risks involved), it just inevitably favours the big guys over the small ones.

          [1] And even if you have a loser-pays model, there could still be a negative opportunity cost based on the probability of a favourable outcome..

    • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday April 28 2015, @01:09AM

      by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday April 28 2015, @01:09AM (#175919)

      No, it isn't. Copyrights are to encourage creative people to create.

      I've seen no credible scientific evidence that it actually is effective at doing such a thing, let alone scientific consensus. People simply make assertions that Bad Things would happen without copyright without providing a shred of hard scientific evidence. I've seen people provide baseless speculation and comparisons of different societies far different from our own in too many other ways, but no real evidence. Copyright places restrictions upon people's liberties, and yet its proponents are not even required to justify its existence? That is insane.

      But even with evidence, the fact that it impacts freedom of speech and private property rights in significant ways is enough to make me oppose it, even if it had provable benefits.

      • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday April 30 2015, @04:05PM

        by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Thursday April 30 2015, @04:05PM (#177134) Homepage Journal

        Every minute you spend grubbing for money is a minute you don't have to practice your craft. Look at the early US; it didn't recognize foreign copyrights, so NO AMERICAN AUTHORS COULD GET PUBLISHED AT ALL since the publishers didn't have to pay an author of a British book.

        --
        mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org