What is Digg?98 Comments
- krached, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Fair Use doctrine didn't originate with photocopiers and has been around in American jurisprudence since the copyright law. There specific exceptions in the 1976 copyright law for libraries and educational institutions to make copies of a piece of a book. Seems like wishful thinking to me. Everyone speeds, and they havent gotten rid of speed limits.
- smhill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Creative Commons is just an exercise of the rights copyright law grants. It is not an alternative to copyright, it is an extension of it.
-------
"I don't know about the end of copyright. Because if I created work I would still like to be reconized as being a part of it and get credit even though I wouldn't give a crap if anyone got it off Bittorrent for free."
As a content creator, you absolutely have the right to do just that under the protection copyright law provides you. Primarily what copyright law does is give you (the creator) the right to determine how reproduction happens (it is more than just that, but that is the basic premise). If you create a song and want to sell it for $50 and it can only be played once, you can set those guidlines. If you want to give it away for anyone to use and share for free, but still retain ownership, you can do that as well. Those are your "copy rights".
---------------
In general the article is as lame as they all are. It is riddled with misdirected angnst. It is fun and hip to bash the RIAA, but ultimately irrelevant. First off, percieved abuse by the RIAA has nothing to do with copyright. It has to do with the level of control that they have and how they choose to use it. Thousands die every year in car accidents due to people abusing their right to drive. Should we do away with cars altogether?
Secondly, people love to winge on about how artists are abused by the RIAA and use "supporting artists rights" as a justification to infringe. Which is painfully stupid as those artists very willingly transfered their rights in order "make it big". They are not victims, they are accomplices. (obviously there are a few rare exceptions).
Copyright is in no danger what so ever. However some industries may be if they don't adjust to the market and take advantage of better distribution models and make changes. There is no impetus or interest changing the law, copyright law isn't the problem. Poor and dated business models are. - communitynews, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"the idea that a band or an author should be paid millions upon millions over the next several decades for something that it cost them at most a few thousand dollars to make, just feels silly to most people."
Investing a few thousand dollars without any rights in the work is what seems silly. - Matt2k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2> But for some reason, many people believe that IP holders/creators are special. They deserve, nay require, being paid in perpetuity for *one* piece/unit of work.
That's exactly right, because it takes the gift of talent to create a product that other people will enjoy. They average their profits over the masses of people they hope will purchase their product.
I'm sorry, but the envelope stuffer, or the mid-level office drone at the corporate office does a lot less for humanity than the people that are out there creating works of art and function.
Do you propose that movies sell one single ticket, at say 150 million dollars, to cover their expense and then distribute it free afterwards? I'm sure if you can find someone willing to commission that initial payment, then your analogy makes sense.
> The carpenter does not get to tell me what room I place his chair in. But the musician gets to tell me what sort of player I can use for his music.
You're confusing copyright with DRM. Copyright says you can't reproduce it outside fair use. DRM places further limits on what your fair use is. One is good, the other is ostensibly evil. - lysdexic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Only problem with the donor model is that it doesn't support innovation any more that the current model does. The big names will get the bulk of the donations and the rest of up and comers will scramble for the few remaining dollars.
- pavelich, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2this is what google wants, put everything they need to in place, pick at the laws of copy-write and information control, and when everything falls, they are the last ones standing. Its right before our eyes but we fail to see it. Search engines are a form of censorship. When we all begin to use one engine, we are under control.
just another sheep in the herd. - pox05, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"But with the printing press, the concept of intellectual property was born." this is not the only reason that copywriting became important.
for more info google on:
Michel Foucault: "What is an Author?" - Niao, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It was once said by the Boards of Canada that "If you can be told what you can see and hear, logically, you are being told what to think or say".
Humans will be able to see every aspect of their culture and the world about them. We'll no longer fear because we've seen the better side of every way of thinking, every culture and every art-form instead of our assumptions, should this model take place.
Even through the mp3 changes, people have heard artists they'd normally never hear and embraced concepts their lives may never normally contain.
Look at it this way:
The human mind and awareness of the world is in itself a singularity. Over time, it has grown phenominally to encompass everything from what foods not to eat to scientific theorum of how the universe works around us.
In old 60's movies, we used to look into the future with our feet firmly set in the present: Culture, technology and fashion did not change in many of these films.
However, these days, we can look forward beyond our own feet onto the next few steps some 50 years quite comfortably.
If we can look forward and see this cultural advancement within our grasps, the only thing left to making this a reality is the dinosaurs whording the profits and controling the market, deciding what we should see and hear.
I feel the goverment may be threatened by this move:
Returning to my first statement, with the atrocities commited by hippocritical goverments who sand over the truths and pretend things like the KGB are there for people's own protection or that the CIA are merely a department of the US goverment, I feel that people are going to take a stand.
Maybe this is the start of something much much bigger...
Or just maybe I should get off my ass and start a damn blog.
This is your friendly neighborhood Niao, signing off for the evening. - lollerskates, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I personally think a system where the life of the copyright is dependent upon the amount of money invested and quality is the best idea.
However, it's pretty damn hard to tell how good a thing is or how much money and time total was invested. - sigUVa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Some good ideas, but it seems written in a stream of consciousness style. I give it a digg.
- tempusrob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Nah ... industries that bank on abusive leverage of copyrights may be out the door, but not copyright itself.
- Matt2k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1> An age in which artist participate in their art not for the money but for the shear love of doing what they do. for the shear love of the art.
Right. And Leonardo and Michalangelo spent their lives scrambling from patron to patron. I know that's the kind of life I'd like to lead as a talented artist trying to support a family. Keep dreaming, Bono - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh, by the way...
Does anyone else find it just a LITTLE suspect that these "I'm an author and even I support the end of copyright" types, who insist that "a new business model is needed," are precisely the same "mammalian" ***** who pursue that "new" business model? Talk about cutthroat business. They're attempting to destroy copyright, to further their own business aims.
It's time to see these people for what they are: duplicitous, conniving, morally suspect, social mavens. Their "new" business model has been around for years. It's called blogging. It's called gaining popularity through ***** social games and taking in a small amount of money through a tip jar. It's no competition for the traditional business model, but these people don't want to compete. They want to destroy. And they'll do it the only way they know how. - Osiriscky3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2good article but 100 years is pretty far off
- alphadog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1While it is a nice thought; the music and movie industry would not allow it. If anything, it will be a nice show to see how it all pans out.
- eventide, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I ran a local 5k and some photographers took pictures of everyone during the race, then offered to sell crummy trinkets with my photo on them. I told them I'd consider it only if I could purchase both a digital version of the photo and the copyright to that photo. They said "we don't do that". I said "then you don't get my money".
- Matt2k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I can't help but find this article terribly naive:
> The idea that a band or an author should be paid millions upon millions over the next several decades for something that it cost them at most a few thousand dollars to make, just feels silly to most people.
The issue is not how much capital is invested -- although there is certainly more than a couple thousand dollars that goes into producing the next Peter Jackson film or Metallica CD -- the issue is that the artists are extremely talented and provide enormous amounts of entertainment for people world wide.
Yes, these are the same people that stand to lose the most by abolishing copyright, but the same little no-name musician or independent filmmaker who's whining about not making any dough, those little nobodies. Let's be brutally honest. 98% of them are completely awful. I would never buy half the crap I see on the independent musician distribution sites. Have you ever read an unpublished author? It's brutal. Of course they don't mind if someone copies their works.
> Does the end of copyright mean that books or music or movies or games will die? Of course not. The urge to create is too strong in all of us, and consumers will always be willing to pay for novelty and for excellence.
Utter nonsense. Any project that requires years and years of development to produce a product of quality, you'd be surprised how soon that novel feeling of "Ooh, I'm making something nifty!" wears off. How many half-finished game modifications do you stumble across, how many websites that read "More updates coming soon" with a time stamp of sometime late 1998. It just isn't true.
Talented people require big boy money to be motivated to continue to create things.
As a software developer myself, I rarely feel interested in working on my softwares any longer because they're so widely distributed. There's better money in for-hire contracting and development in proprietary systems. Sure, I could invest a bunch of time in developing some sort of anti-piracy fancy pants keycode scheme, but I really just don't feel motivated any longer.
The world is a selfish place and rampant piracy will only continue to force much of the talent onto other commercial ventures.
While I make this sound like a bad thing, I'm actually quite excited about it. I can think of no better world where we don't have movies and music and games dominating the minds of our youth. Let the markets be destroyed. Spend more time being human rather than tuning out to your iPod while watching TV. Physical tangible books are where its at.
So yes, let's pray copyright dies and takes the entire entertainment industry with it. Our grandchildren will thank us. - Knoton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Communism is definitely a type of government, anarchy on the other hand is lack of government although not necessarily chaos
- Zeuser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There is still room for copyright. Think about it: I write this great insightful article on something. Some weasel working for a major news paper sees it, copies it and publishes it in the news paper under his name.
With the copyright act I can go after him for such a blatant rip-off. Without copyright I really can't do much about it.
Some people see copyright as abuse by the owners of said copyright but they fail to recconize that copyright is also meant to prevent the type of abuse from talentless people ripping off the talented people.
Copyright in itself won't die. But I have to admit, it needs a major re-work so it's up to date with today's technology and prevents abuse from both sides, the author and the talentless people just trolling around for good material to rip off. - rebrad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well put, but the Lawyers and Money will fight tooth and nail. The death of the internet as we know it is the probable result. The elites have always tried to restrict access to information and have been largely successful.
Those who say the internet can't be controlled are naive. All you have to do is look at China to see how current technologies can be controlled and with daily improvements in technology, control is getting much easier. The DMCA was the first primitive step and the elites have lots of experience in controlling their subjects.
Until technology can break free of easily controlled physical routes of information real change doesn't stand a chance. Don't expect the elite corporates to knowingly provide the means. Business models have changed but control hasn't.
All technologies have weaknesses and exploiting those weakness may free you but only with the destruction of the world as we know it. Nothing is free and the costs of the loss of privacy and security may be more than you want to pay. - gridpoet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"As a creator of intellectual property, if I lose my copyright protection, I lose my right to be paid for my work and have no way to protect myself from my works being pirated or stolen. Why is this so hard to understand? I would have to charge a ridiculous fee for the initial creation to offset the loss of all future sales and licensing. And who is going to pay that?
His argument in the article that architects aren't paid every time a person walks into a building is just ignorant and absurd. An architects plans are protected, not the right to walk in the building.
All of you who contribute to open source projects or other free works most likely do that on the side and do not depend on that work as your sole source of income. Just try paying a mortgage on "recognition" because you get credit for your work being downloaded on a torrent. Pure utopianism."
Bossm4n...you and the other corporate shills are missing the freaking point... He is in NO WAY insisting that artists shouldn't make money from their works...he is merely saying that they are going to have to develop new and novel ways of doing so. Allowing the big corporations to Legislate their outdated business models to keep scamming us all out of cash is what is crushing innovation. I can guarantee you one thing...democratic capitalism WILL find a way. Just because its new or different and ALOT of the current corporate behemoths will go extinct DOESN'T mean its not going to make alot of artists money...GET A CLUE! stop supporting an outdated system and welcome the revolution! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"or instead will we see an insurgence of pure art. will we be instead given a period of time where diversity in appearance and style will be cherished. An age in which artist participate in their art not for the money but for the shear love of doing what they do. for the shear love of the art. people will always pay for the privilege to be surrounded by beauty, genius, strangeness. yes artist will no longer make millions, but neither do i think they will starve. people will always pay to support something they love. art is a creating force."
LOL, what kind of fairy land do you live in? China does not care much for copyright, do you think China is full of creativity, beauty, genius? Without copyright, when one person create something amazing, a million others will steal it and pretend it's their own. - dvydra, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Nice story, but I worry that technology will end up facilitating even stricter enforcement measures.
also - digg needs a threaded comments system. - Braamer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A: Copyright will die. The effort put into creating content is inherent , and the removal of restrictions to content will result in a more pure form of creativity, not muddled with the intricate details of who can do what with this or that...
B: Copyright will survive. The effort put into creating content is an investment, and the desire to create is based on the return on investment. Nobody will create anything of value to anyone else unless the underlying motivation of money or recognition is present.
C. Copyright will evolve. Creativity, whether it be inherent, motivated by money and recognition, or some hybrid of the two, will always exist. The means of content creation and distribution are rapidly evolving, becoming easier, faster, and available to a wider range of people. As the nature of creating content evolves, everything, including its display, distribution, modification, and control, evolves with it.
With 5 odd billion (supposedly) cognitive entities scurrying about on the surface of this planet, I find this kind of future-speculation style article irresponsible, but necessary. Its value seems to lie in its controversy. Taking sides provokes thought. It makes perfect sense that creators of content would enjoy being paid to do what they love. But if they refuse to create anymore, will someone else be right behind them creating things anyway? If the 125 million dollar blockbuster movies disappear, will someone fill that hole? and if so, with what? What effect will this have on the quality of content? What is "quality" anyhow?
If you told me ten years ago that cell phone ring tones would be a four billion dollar global market, I would have laughed... Who knows. We insignificant little collections of water and meat, with our self-righteousness, and our sex-drives, and our fascination with shiny objects... Blessed are the fortune tellers who will always be there to tell me how things are going to be. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This article is nicely written for a piece of fiction. Copyright exists because it is a fundamental human right. See Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the UN.
Protection of intellectual property is not for the purpose of "innovating society." Since when was my purpose and life about slaving for "the society?" What I spend my life creating is my own moral right. The last year of my life I spent thinking about a new business method is not just an intangible idea with a potential for income...its a year of my life I'll never get back. That is what a patent is protecting. Stealing that idea is equal to stealing a year of my life and the energy and creativity I spent. If anything, piracy is worse than slavery. At least slave owners provided shelter and food.
Copyright will go away the day we stop respecting human beings and we regress to a barbaric environment where force and slaughter is the only way to get what you want out of people. Look how well the Great Purge of intellectuals turned out in Stalinist Soviet Union. That is the dream of this article. - ursabear, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Everyone has to "pay the bills."
I've written some free software, free fonts, and some free music... However, I have a full-time job to pay the mortgage. If I made my living with my artistic work, we would starve under the copyright-free model.
I suppose we could go back to the time (a hundred or so years ago) where artisans had patrons and sponsors to pay the bills.
This is a good discussion, but one that is difficult to nail down. On the one hand, I have a friend that says all music should be free, but at the same moment, he wants to be paid to develop software... - n0xie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The effort put into creating content is an investment, and the desire to create is based on the return on investment. Nobody will create anything of value to anyone else unless the underlying motivation of money or recognition is present."
I think all the open source projects will beg to differ...
Great article. Definatly worth a digg. - jp10558, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The big problem with copyright is it makes a totally different (and some might say special) standard for IP creators/owners compared to any other sort of employment.
Every other sort of job I can imagine, from construction workers to social workers to managers gets paid per hr or per year of work. Even piecemeal workers like enveloper stuffers get paid per item made.
All of them have something in common. They get paid *once* for a given amount of work, whether measured per hr, year or piece.
But for some reason, many people believe that IP holders/creators are special. They deserve, nay require, being paid in perpetuity for *one* piece/unit of work. Not only that, but their childern, and possibly decendents on to eternity should be paid for that work. And that isn't enough - no they should be able to dictate what we do with the work even after they have sold it to us, dictate how we use it in our home.
To many, this seems both unfair and illogical. The carpenter does not get to tell me what room I place his chair in. But the musician gets to tell me what sort of player I can use for his music.
Not only that, but many things cost goes down as the replication cost goes down. But not IP - because it's cost to replicate is often 0. - winAMPED, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The end of exclusive copyright, maybe... More people are willing to share, and things like CC are popping up, making it easier and safer to do so.
- Stormen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I agree with the author, but I don't think anybody has the answer for this problem yet. However, I am sure solutions for all of these problems will evolve; and 50 years from now, it will all seem soooo evident :-)
- pgm_01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Copyright exists as a balance between the rights of the creator and the public. As soon as you want the public to view your work you are supposed to lose some control over it, in return the public loses some rights too.
If you want total control over your work, lock it in your attic and chose who can see it, force those who see it to sign an NDA which seizes all of their assets upon disclosure. Or you can release it to the public, who after a LIMITED amount of time, gets to build on your ideas. You get a small window to make your money and then the public gets to build off of it.
Copyright is flawed. It protects the middlemen, not the artists and injures the public by not allowing for the natural growth that occurs when others are allowed to expand on the original ideas.
Everybody knows the song Danny Boy. The tune is Londonderry Aire. How many generations will go by before someone can turn the "tune" of Hit Me Baby One More Time into another composition (most likely improving it :) )? Some of the most creative music on the net is in the form of Mash-Ups, most of which is very illegal under copyright law and some of which is excellent. Copyright law as it exists will die, but not until the media companies lose favor in congress or they run out of money, either way it will take some time. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@chosenone
If you're going to flame people, at least be specific. I can see now where aristotle1990 might have IMPLIED that the Swedish government is Communist, but is that any reason to call him a stupid *****? I called half the open source movement Communist. Does that make me a stupid *****, too? The fact that you're wrong doesn't help things either.
Since you like reference material so much:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=communist
Com·mu·nist
...
3. often communist A radical viewed as a subversive or revolutionary.
As in "those Swedes are a bunch of Communists, just like the Democratic Party, Martha Reeves, and the Vandellas."
Ta-*****-da! Read up at least some sort of common-sense to fuel your limited world. - strikezero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0interesting
- pavelich, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0and by the way this is the best digg commenting i have yet to see, we need better articles to inspire discussion, not just a crap link to the firefox homepage telling us how theres a new firefox. big deal my firefox and opera work just fine now. hopefully 1.5 is in 3D
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Some of the most creative music on the net is in the form of Mash-Ups"
then they aren't really creative now, aren't they? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Communism is now "Democratic Capitalism" (and presumably Democratic Capitalism, upon which American government was based, is now Fascism).
I like that. Newspeak at its finest.
I think we can all agree that a) artists have a right to make money from their work, b) corporations are using their lawyers and money to gain absurd privilege from Congress, c) "copy protection" technology is anti-consumer and often illegal, d) governments should enforce the law to protect their citizens, and e) market forces ultimately will balance the conflict between copy-protected corporate products and open source alternatives. That should be the end of it.
The problem is, Freebies are post-modernists. They can't understand that "market forces" do not include legislative pressure. They think that political activism IS a market force. It's not. They think that breaking the law IS a market force. It's not. You people are tampering with and disrespecting market forces, just as corporations like Sony and Disney are doing. In other words, the extremists on both sides of this issue, as in ALL issues, are just irrational *****. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Zeuser, you're correct. But the problem isn't that they fail to recognize "that copyright is also meant to prevent the type of abuse from talentless people ripping off the talented people." They completely recognize it. The people who don't want copyrights ARE the talentless people ripping off the talented people. Blaming "copyright abuse" is just the cop-out excuse to steal. They're just upset that they can't afford things they think they "deserve" for being born and so whine for cheaper or free stuff. I don't think there is a doubt that they are wishing they were the ones who came up with something valuable with their lives.
- jeruvin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Awesome article. I think the point is that the industries are trying to prevent fair use of copyrighted material.
I read a really good book about copyright laws and how old technologies fight to keep new technologies from taking their money. It happened when FM overtook AM, VCRs allowed us to record and now music. I wish I could remember the title of the book. It had a black and white striped cover. Anyone remember the title of this book? - MWWLSE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The idea that people would donate money in advance in order to have a product made is absurd. This violates the free-rider principle, which states that essentially nobody would donate if they think other people are donating to have a product made. Who wins in that situation? If you donate, and you know a product will be made, then you paid, and your neighbor didn't, you lose. Then if nobody donates, nothing is made, and that's exactly what would happen.
- battybattybatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0There is no copyright law, there is only the copyright ACT.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0umm with our copywright and patents.......i invented the plane,the car, windows and wrote the original linx kernal umm no copywriths r her to stay
http://www.frontlinetech.blogspot.com - SubZ3r0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0it wont happen for reasons like that to many retards have no talent and need to sell others ideas cause they cant think of there own.
- tommis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Very interesting article. I also blogged about this here:
http://www.q1b.com/end_of_cd_based_copy_protection_on_pc_games.aspx
Digg's profile system doesn't support every type of blog :( - your_mom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0are you REALLY albert pacino? i really hope so.....
- thecolorme, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's been abused so much, it has to die sometime. Human-Genome anybody?
- Dynax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0what if artists (musicians, actors, authors and so forth), no longer
get paid for each and every creation/song/viewing)? What will happen
to the industries, the art, the music? Will it all go bottom up?
or instead will we see an insurgence of pure art. will we be instead given a period of time where diversity in appearance and style will be cherished. An age in which artist participate in their art not for the money but for the shear love of doing what they do. for the shear love of the art. people will always pay for the privilege to be surrounded by beauty, genius, strangeness. yes artist will no longer make millions, but neither do i think they will starve. people will always pay to support something they love.
art is a creating force. - jumjum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think everything, no matter how cheap or expensive, will eventually be free, from a lowly jug of chocolate milk to a luxurious Saleen (the greatest car ever built). I can wish, anyway.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"I think all the open source projects will beg to differ... "
Open source programmers want recognition. - ursabear, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is the best dialog I've seen on digg to date! Much better than whining and flaming!
Intelligent discussion fosters growth for all parties...
One thing I forgot to say before...
Indeed, a piecemeal worker-bee gets paid once during the product's creation, and not residually. However, copyrights often cover the product made - which the company sells to make money (and copyrights prevent other companies from ripping off the content) - if the company makes money, they pay some of it to the worker-bee to do some more work.
Anarchy is very stimulating and is an important force of change... It does not, however, pay the bills or raise our children. - pgm_01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0IDC has some very creative mash-ups, you should listen.
http://www.idcmusic.com/consume.html -
Show 51 - 96 of 96 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is