Who says we need copyright? As Reihan Salam amply demonstrates modern information technology lets individuals create bizarre and exciting -- well, bizarre and mildly amusing -- new content with ease using nothing more than a laptop.
« He Does it for a Reason | Main | Deep Breaths »
Shocking the Monkey
23 May 2008 04:22 pm
Comments (15)
I'm not sure how Mr. Salam's work fits with a copyright discussion. As best as I can tell, "All contents copyright The American Scene unless otherwise noted."
Reaching back through the mists of time, I'll suggest a better example of "Who says...": The Grey Album, still a part of my iTunes library.
Interesting. I use my laptop to assist with Spanking the Monkey
Interesting. I use my laptop to assist with Spanking the Monkey
As we speak, evidently.
We need copyright because it is the only thing which stops Deep Pockets corporations from taking the hard work of individual creators, modifying the material at whim, distributing it themselves, and keeping 100% of the profits.
Matthew Yglesias...
You are a corporate shill.
Freddie: "Uh, because if you want people to be able to make the kind of bizarre and exciting things that cost real money-- like, say, a good movie-- you can't allow anyone to just distribute the movie free of charge and continue to have an industry that creates those movies."
Prove it.
Uhhh.. considering that copyright stretches back several hundred years, I think the burden of proof is on those advocating for it's abolition. It's neat that you can make gee-whiz things on a laptop, but who is going to write a book without assurance of recovering the high fixed costs? I'm sure Matt would not like for someone else to be distributing free copies of his book on the street corner, now would he?
The real argument isn't between copyright or no.
It is whether we limit the monopoly a copyright creates, in order to stimulate creativity and the advancement of "science and the useful arts" through wide public access to works in the "public domain."
For a century, 42 years was enough. Until 1976, 56 years.
Then, the corporate interests really took over, talking Congress into extending copyright whenever some of their IP was about to enter the public domain. For a few years, that meant life plus 50, then life plus 75. Whatever it takes to keep Mickey in the vault.
At some point, some lobbyist will finally write a draft that inserts "in perpetuity" and just be done with it. Maybe it's time to reset the clock, and kick it back to 28 years, which should be a perfect fit for all of you strict constructionists out there.
Was copyright instituted because of the great difficulty of using pen and paper?
"considering that copyright stretches back several hundred years, I think the burden of proof is on those advocating for it's abolition."
Prove that copyright has anything to do with the production of new ideas, in history or by logical argument from first principles of economics.
You can't do it. No one has ever done it. It can't be done because there is no evidence and no argument that can be made. Which is why you rely on the mere fact of its historical existence.
Not to mention that copyright was originally imposed in England to PREVENT the dissemination of publications from other than the Crown's publishers.
It ORIGINATED in an attempt to repress publishing.
Hack,
You, and Yglesias, advocate an unjust policy, where creators receive no financial reward for their creations. The beneficiaries of your immoral, utopianist proposal will be those with the most marketing muscle, and most importantly, control over distribution channels: large moneyed interests, particularly telecoms.
Why do you love corporations so much?
"You, and Yglesias, advocate an unjust policy, where creators receive no financial reward for their creations."
Neither I nor Matt said anything of the kind.
In fact, I'm just the opposite of that. I want the corporations trashed. And the best way to do that is to wideband their "intellectual property" or obsolete it with "open source" products.
Beyond that, the notion that the only way to make money from creation is through state protection of the creation is a clear demonstration that you don't like creators, since you don't think the value of a creation will be recognized despite the lack of state protection.
And it's precisely for such "limited value" creations that copyright was created - because they couldn't compete in a truly free market.
Nobody who produces something of significant value to their customers ever has to worry about being "ripped off" by "pirates" as everybody knows that, to get the best product, you deal with the original producer (usually - there are exceptions.)
Your knowledge of the free market and economics and the impact of technology on same is pathetic, as is that of most IP supporters.
Hack:
I want the corporations trashed.
You're their useful idiot. So is Yglesias.
Nobody who produces something of significant value to their customers ever has to worry about being "ripped off" by "pirates" as everybody knows that, to get the best product, you deal with the original producer
Ridiculous. It doesn't matter whose hard drive you download digital copies off of. It doesn't matter whose paper words are printed on. What matters are the ideas themselves.
Well, that rant was productive.
Try again. This time with some logic.
Comments closed June 06, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Uh, because if you want people to be able to make the kind of bizarre and exciting things that cost real money-- like, say, a good movie-- you can't allow anyone to just distribute the movie free of charge and continue to have an industry that creates those movies.
Posted by Freddie | May 23, 2008 4:52 PM