I'm just pointing out that our current system of copyright doesn't really do enough to protect the authors and artists that create the works we enjoy; there's certainly room for improvement.
Already copyright laws do not offer protection for writers (see the current [screen]writers strike [1]), visual artists, musicians (see the recent Taylor Swift re-recording debacle [2]), not to speak of the "lower" arts, crafts & merch, where colossi such as H&M and Zara steal art, designs, concepts regularly [3] (not to even mention the sweatshops).
Copyright laws, or in fact generally laws, are for the rich and powerful, perhaps even for the corporations, not the individuals, since they paid for them to be so [4], it's just us, individually, the hoi polloi, who are still trapped into believing that there is rhyme or reason to our current system.
The joke is that while our system extolls itself as the most efficient system in history, based on competition of equals and free markets (two contradictions in terms contradicting each other), it harbours terrible inefficiencies such as the copyright laws, the patent system, and so on.
I agree that our current copyright system is certainly out of hand, but it does serve a purpose. Out of curiosity, what system would you suggest in its stead?
That's not even a joke. One of the premises of a copyright is that you defend your intellectual property or lose it. If the system were more equitable then it would defend your copyright.
"Pro (Current) Copyright: We need to protect artists. We need to protect the invested parties interests."
Eh, I don't think you'll hear much talk about artists when the copyright lobbyists meet with our elected representatives. More likely, you'll hear this: copyrights are an important source of revenue for a major part of the US economy. We need stronger copyrights to protect that revenue stream. The only time people talk about artists is when they are appealing to the general public's moral sentiments.
"Against (Current) Copyright: Internet. It's companies who Copyright protects not Artists. Copyright actually stifles creativity and application of invention."
It depends on who you ask. People in the anti-copyright crowd (like myself) are not all united on what should change. RMS has said that copyright can be good e.g. when applied in the way that the GPL applies it, or that it can be bad, so the system should be reformed to ensure that GPL-style application is promoted (or GFDL for written documents, or creative commons, etc.). My view is that copyright was made obsolete by the development of PCs and global computer networks, and that a new system must be developed to ensure that artists are paid, that scientists can publish papers, and that the utility of PCs and the Internet must be legally protected (e.g. we must ensure that we, the general public, have access to computers that are not restricted or designed to fight us, and we must ensure that we continue to have access to a global communication network that makes no distinction between the nodes connected to it). There are some who want to create a complete anarchy, where copying is entirely unregulated -- where no system for ensuring access to creative works exists.
"It's all high level creation issues"
That is not really true. Copyright is about you, even if you do not personally do the sort of work that copyrights cover. Copyright is about your ability to access human knowledge; it is about your right to sing "Happy Birthday;" it is about your continued access to things like the Internet, and ensuring that the Internet does not degenerate into a cable TV network (which is a system designed with copyrights in mind). The combination of PCs and the Internet has the potential to upend copyrights and completely change the way in which knowledge and entertainment spread, having an impact as broad and lasting as the printing press (which was the reason copyright was first created) or as writing itself (which forever changed the way information was passed from generation to generation). Human civilization is made possible by communication, and copyrights are about communication; if you do not care about copyrights today, you will eventually be forced to care, should copyright law continue its outrageous expansion (and there is no reason to think the expansion will stop any time soon).
While I think copyright law is currently overbearing and harmful and desperately needs fixing, I don't agree that the concept of copyright itself is broken.
The legitimate role of copyright is to encourage artists to allow public access to their works. Without some form of protection, a lot of work would never be available to most people because keeping it hidden will become the only protection artists have.
I was being somewhat glib. I guess I should’ve included some kind of sarcmark. I agree of course that it’s noble to find less pathological ways to protect the people who truly create. I don’t know if copyright is the right solution (or if it’s not), or what kind of timeframe would bring the most benefit with the least harm. But I certainly think the current implementation is so absurd as to be worth challenging.
Sure, see all the graffiti everywhere? Laws aren't protecting that art, au contraire.
The concept of copyright became stronger as lobbying and surveillance state became stronger.
Creative people will create regardless. Creative people who have ample free time and who don't have to think about bills much, will create more and, more importantly, more accessible works. The sophisticated thing to do is to allow copying anybody's ideas¹ and give people a guaranteed income².
¹ I think plagiarism, ie not giving credit where its due, should be punished. I'm not sure if it should fall in the realm of the law though, maybe it could be kept check under social pressure.
² If it can't be universal, then make it scholarship based, subject to renewal, or something.
Edit: To be more explicit, on my view both the parent and the op are right, and they don't contradict each other: We don't need new copyright legislation. We need new legal concepts.
I think both people are right: There is an overwhelming need to address the situation of artists and writers ("content creators"). Copyright is not being used because it's the right tool to do so, but because it's the only even vaguely plausible one. It's also clear that it's not sufficient.
Well, thank god that copyright is helping ensure the production of creative works and performances and keeping them from leaving the eyes of the--oh, oh wait. Balls. :(
I wonder if there is still any sort of reasonable discussion to be had here...pro-copyright folks have claimed that lacking copyright will prevent people from ever creating art, which is demonstrably false; anti-copyright folks have claimed that enforcing copyright will reduce art creation and distribution, which is true.
It's so clear cut it seems like we've moved past the point of fruitful arguing and now must simply shout past each other, much as on abortion, surveillance, bearing arms, or using the GPL.
Copyright addresses a real issue but at the same time creates new issues. It's not obvious to me that a world without copyright is better than one with it. Just because something solves a problem doesn't always mean that it's worth doing, if the costs are too high.
> My only worry is the current copyright regime is seeming to be ignoring the rather stark changes in overall cost of "copying" digital files. A lot of our current law rests upon copying itself being a prohibitive process and only possible by a limited few.
This is backwards. If copying were a prohibitive process, we wouldn't need laws to stop people from doing it.
Copyright rests on the opposite premise: That making copies of creative works is relatively easy and cheap. It was originally a response to the printing press making it really easy for anyone to publish bootleg books, which meant that actually paying an author for the rights to his or her work was a sucker's game. Copyright legislation was introduced to prevent people from taking advantage of how easy it was for anyone with a press to copy an author's work.
I don't understand what you're trying to argue here. On the one hand, this is obviously true. On the other hand, it is also true that art forms can essentially die out. Who works with stained glass murals or illuminated manuscripts anymore?
It is certainly true that the US constitution can be amended. Nevertheless, we live in a world in which what you want is not [just not the law of the land] but explicitly [forbidden by the land's highest legal authority].
As I see it, there are two separate conversations here. The first one is whether the changes you're proposing would have the effect that you intend. The second is whether the changes you are proposing could be made in our society.
My original comment was meant to convince you that this second point wasn't reasonable. To change something that's unconstitutional is a much bigger deal than just changing something that is currently a law.
For the record, I also strongly disagree with you on the first point. I think, and have expressed elsewhere in this thread [0], that the current copyright regime is far too strong to be maximize social welfare.
To directly address your original points:
1) Increasing incentives for authors does not necessarily produce better works. It turns out that money is an exceptionally poor motivator of creative work. Dan Pink has a rather famous TED talk [1] in which among other things he describes how offering people money for a task can make them perform worse at it.
2) Stronger copyright regimes do not reward creators, they reward rights holders -- a crucial difference. The creative industries are notorious bad actors with respect to the artists that do the work. See for example, Hollywood Accounting [2], the RIAA failing to pay musicians [3], and even when everything goes according to plan "For every $1000 worth of music sold, the average musician makes $23.40." [4]
3) Allow me to quote you for a second. You write
> The worst case (and unrealistic) scenario of a stingy heir just doesn't matter. If someone deprived us of Sherlock Holmes or Harry Potter or Mickey Mouse or whatever, we would all be just fine. None of them are essential.
If these works aren't essential why should we as a society subsidize the creation of new works through long-lasting monopoly rights? I am rather confused by what difference you perceive between yet-to-be created works and already created works.
I've written a lot that probably won't be read by anyone, but in conclusion, arguing for an extension of copyright law requires a lot more thought than you seem to have put in.
reply