I want to live in your dystopia, man:

[skywaterblue]

Man writes scaremongering post about how life without copyright would SUCK.

I wrote this big fucking essay/rant about how dumb this is, but I probably won't have internet access to fight people online who are wrong. Suffice to say: people don't buy shit because it's copyrighted. If they did, every fucking computer in the universe would run Linux and Firefox and no one would remember what Microsoft did because Steve Jobs would be some unknown coder in Palo Alta.

They buy/read/consume because it's aspirational to do so.

Comments

[pauraque]

Only skimmed it, but:

Places like I-Tunes would go out of business fairly quickly since if you can get something fee, why buy it?

What planet does this fella live on? o_O

[skywaterblue]

... not any reality I know, clearly. Let's start with bottled water and then work our way to iTunes, y'know?

[sarken]

NO NO NO NO NO, NOT DEAN WESLEY SMITH. DON'T BE AN ASSHOLE, MAN. YOU WROTE ONE OF MY FAVORITE TREK NOVELS. :(

[skywaterblue]

Ha ha, work-for-hire author is pro-copyright. HILARIOUS.

[bethos.livejournal.com]

Also, it's not a black and white issue where copyrights as they are now = THE WAY, because copyrights as they are now are fucking ridiculous. The copyright period in this country was not THE LIFE OF THE AUTHOR PLUS SEVENTY YEARS when copyright was conceived as a concept.

Also, basically, shut up, that dude.

[skywaterblue.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I'd vote for the Pirate Party, but I'm actually not as radical as people think I am. I just think two things should happen:

One, copywrited material must be OWNED by an actual, living person/shared percentage of named people. Then, corporations can lease it from someone, but they can't outright buy it through shitty work-for-hire situations.

Two, they're too fucking long, no one needs their kids to get fat off the rights to granddaddy's work. Shorten that to like, life of the author + 25 and if after it's done, Timmy doesn't have a real job, that's tough shit.

[bethos.livejournal.com]

I like that idea, although I think that life + 25 is still on the long side. I'd be okay with life, personally. Or life + 10. I appreciate that copyright holders deserve a legacy, but I mean ... come on. Copyright terms used to be like 28 years.

I really like the idea of lease-only copyright though. Where the copyright actually vests in its creator. I know property law hates restrictions on alienation, but come on.

[skywaterblue.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't mind life either, but I kind of respect the idea that a creator might have a spouse, or a dependent who might otherwise have no income. It seems cruel, if someone is living off royalties and copyright payments, to yank that away.

Ten years is a good compromise, though.

Intellectual property should rest with the intellect that created it. Maybe when you get your law degree you can work it.

[kadymae.livejournal.com]

Two, they're too fucking long, no one needs their kids to get fat off the rights to granddaddy's work. Shorten that to like, life of the author + 25 and if after it's done, Timmy doesn't have a real job, that's tough shit.

This, thank you.

Warren Ellis and I went 'round on this once and I mentioned that my dad's name is on the patents for several technologies for things that are now common video technologies but that because cause he created them while a Civil Servant, he had to sign the rights over to the US Government.

WE responded that didn't I wish I had some of that money now.

I responded that I wasn't raised to be a sponge off of my father's achievements but to make my own way in the world.

WE replied that the next time I said something like that I was asking for a banning.

[skywaterblue.livejournal.com]

Almost all the REALLY acrimonious conversations I've ever had with people on copyright law have been people who make comics.

I find this ironic, and really ignorant as fuck.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

It's not the demand end that would be the problem in a society without copyright. It's the supply end. Absent copyright, there would be far less professional-quality intellectual product available, because the producers of such material wouldn't bother to make it if they couldn't be reasonably sure of being paid for it.

[skywaterblue.livejournal.com]

Publishers apparently don't make any money now! And you're right of course. The real reason copyright doesn't do what he says is because it's easier for most Americans to go to Wal-Mart and buy Star Trek on DVD than to sit around and fiddle with downloads and burning and codecs.

[fashionbeast.livejournal.com]

One minute after the sudden vanishing of all copyright laws around the world, not a lot would be happening except for many experienced writers suddenly realizing they are out of a job.

PROBLEM ONE: Many experienced writers earn their living from non-copyrighted material. They're called (ironically) copywriters, and their jobs are to a certain extent more stable than writers dependent on copyright. Do you think the person who wrote the back cover copy on the latest Charlaine Harris novel is bringing in fat royalty checks?

And many publishers would be shouting orders to try to get copies of certain things.
PROBLEM TWO: Publishers don't seem to have any problem with making money off of public domain material. It still costs me as much to fill up my tank as it does to buy a new copy of War and Peace.

In the United States, copyright is a constitutional right, actually written into the document. If you don’t believe me, go read it.
PROBLEM THREE: Oh come on now, this is just sloppy. If you can't quote your key source I refuse to believe it.

Writers could no longer make a living.
PROBLEM FOUR: Cory Doctorow seems to be doing just fine. Again, what he means to say here is FICTION WRITERS.

In the brave new world of no copyright, I could write Trek with Donald Duck as the main character fighting Sherlock Holmes and no one could stop me as long as I put the little trademark symbols beside the names.
PROBLEM FIVE: Uh, no you couldn't. You're misunderstanding the difference between copyright and trademarks. Also Sherlock Holmes is not trademarked and in the public domain, so you can in fact do whatever you want with him.

So another example would be that you build a house, and your neighbor likes your new house better and just moves in and takes it because you don’t own it and never can own it because there are no property laws.
PROBLEM SIX: This is actually a terrible metaphor.

So, if all copyright laws suddenly vanished around the world, there would simply be no way for anyone to make any money off of anything written.
PROBLEM SEVEN: Copyright laws are different in every country; to say that the disappearance of copyright law the world over would affect all writers the same way is naive.

99% of all beginning writers wouldn’t have a clue anything was wrong because they have yet to learn copyright.
PROBLEM EIGHT: 99% of beginning writers aren't good enough to be published yet; copyright is actually not the most immediate concern right now for them.

I'm going to stop now, because debunking this entire play by play would keep me up for another four hours and I've got to work in five.

[skywaterblue.livejournal.com]

I know! I have even less time than you, but it was such a tempting target.

Still, I marvel at a world where a published author thinks people buy stuff because of copyright. Instead of, you know, because it's good. HILARIOUS.

[nicole-anell.livejournal.com]

In the brave new world of no copyright, I could write Trek with Donald Duck as the main character fighting Sherlock Holmes and no one could stop me as long as I put the little trademark symbols beside the names.
1. The problem with that is...? I'd like to see someone discuss copyright without immediately falling back on OH GOD NOES FANFIC.
2. Sherlock Holmes is public domain, you idiot.

[skywaterblue.livejournal.com]

Part of my rant I deleted was that his world of nothing but the BBC, shitty youtube videos, old books and fanfic probably describes 9/10ths of where I get my entertainment.