XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: candid@dontbother.invalid   
      
   Jim Gysin wrote:   
   > Dr Nancy's Sweetie sent the following on 10/26/2009 8:41 PM:   
   >> Somebody wrote, of copyrights:   
   >>> The current 105 year span (likely to be expanded again by Disney   
   >>> lobbying) is ridiculous.   
   >> "Jim Gysin " replied:   
   >>> Why?  Because it's not what you want?   
   >>   
   >> The original justification is "to promote the progress of science and   
   >> useful arts", and I don't think a copyright term longer than the   
   >> average life expectancy does that.   
   >   
   > And FWIW, promoting progress wasn't the *only* original "justification,"   
   > either.   
      
   It's the only one stated in the Constitution.   
      
   >> I think the current copyright terms do the exact opposite: they   
   >> undermine creativity and useful arts.  Consider that Disney's animation   
   >> studio had produced drek for years, and the only way they were able to   
   >> rejuvenate themselves was to buy Pixar and let the Pixar people run the   
   >> place.  They hadn't had a decent original idea in years, because they   
   >> didn't NEED to: they are still profiting off Walt Disney's original   
   >> work, even though he's been dead for over 40 years.   
   >   
   > Is there a law that requires them to generate new ideas on a regular   
   > basis?  Does society have a "right" to expect it out of them?  Does   
   > society have some sort of claim on them?   
      
   It doesn't seem unreasonable to require them to generate new ideas on a   
   regular basis IN ORDER TO GET PAID FOR IDEA-GENERATION ON A REGULAR BASIS.   
      
   If they want to quit, they can go ahead but they should then have to   
   find another line of work to bring home the bacon.   
      
   Just like auto workers, carpenters, telephone company program debugging   
   experts, doctors, lawyers, and everyone in most OTHER occupations   
   outside the entertainment industry.   
      
   One thing that is clearly absent from the Constitution is a "copyrights   
   are a welfare/guaranteed income act for artists" clause, so even those   
   who think copyright promotes the progress of science and the useful arts   
   (despite the mounting evidence that it does the opposite) are silly to   
   make any arguments based on this concept of giving artists some silly   
   guaranteed income stream for life. (Which doesn't work anyway. The vast   
   majority of those who create copyrighted works either are creating works   
   for hire for a fixed sum or the only way they can get distributed widely   
   is to sign with a publisher/record label/whatever under unfavorable   
   terms under which they get a pittance unless they make the big time, and   
   often sign over the rights anyway. The musicians making big bucks are   
   either super-popular or are making their money mainly by touring, for   
   example. The only novelists making big bucks are the ones that manage to   
   land on the bestseller list. It's a lottery. Copyright royalties are   
   basically of no significance to the vast majority of productive artists.   
   Obscurity is a much bigger problem for them, and copyright promotes   
   obscurity by keeping prices artificially high and thereby reducing demand!)   
      
   > Again, you're pushing a false premise that states that there was only   
   > one initial "justification" for copyright law.   
      
   There WAS only one in the Constitution, and the one in the Constitution   
   is the only one that matters as a matter of constitutional law; it's the   
   only one that can shield copyright laws from being unconstitutional due   
   to the First Amendment.   
      
   > No one is suggesting that anyone "owns" the concept of music, or   
   > television, or the book.  OTOH, some of us *are* arguing that certain   
   > songs and shows and novels should continue to be unavailable to those   
   > who are too cheap to buy a legal copy of their own.   
      
   Is someone who is willing to pay the marginal cost of producing one more   
   copy, but not much more, "too cheap" to have one? If so, why?   
   Particularly since they wouldn't be considered to be too cheap for not   
   being willing to pay much more than marginal cost for most manufactured   
   goods. Also, who decides how much money someone has to be willing to pay   
   before they are no longer "too cheap" to "deserve" to have something?   
      
   And where does this notion of deserving come from anyway? It sounds   
   suspiciously like you're trying to make a moral, rather than an   
   economical, argument, and one based on a dubious zero-summish premise   
   such as "getting anything for free or cheap is automatically immoral".   
   The same stupidity that makes people "morally suspicious" of sex,   
   recreational drugs, and other non-zero-sum things.   
      
   The only things that are actually inherently immoral though are things   
   that infringe another's self-determination, by harming their body   
   against their will, or that physically deprive them of something they   
   had, be it money or other things. Theft and vandalism are evil because   
   of the latter, for example. Copyright infringement is not evil because   
   it fails to either injure a person or take property away from that   
   person that they had. At worst, it may reduce a future revenue   
   opportunity, as any kind of competition ending a monopoly may do, but if   
   copyright infringement is evil because doing it may decrease the rents   
   some individual or company can charge in the marketplace for a good,   
   then going into the fast food business is evil because your added   
   competition will marginally decrease the future revenues of the local   
   McDonalds franchises, and selling your used car is evil because people   
   selling used cars might marginally decrease the near-term revenues of   
   auto manufacturers again by cannibalizing sales.   
      
   So if copyright infringement is inherently evil, so is a cornerstone of   
   capitalism: competition. If you believe copyright infringement to be   
   evil, then you must logically be a communist.   
      
   On the other hand, if you don't believe it is inherently evil, then you   
   cannot use a moral argument to support the preservation of copyright   
   law. You must instead use a public-policy or public-good argument,   
   grounded in economics. And all such arguments seem to have a bad habit   
   of getting shot down by, among others, expert economists.   
      
   (The argument that infringement is evil because it's against the law,   
   and therefore there should be a law against infringement, is obviously   
   circular. I mention this because I HAVE seen online debaters stupid   
   enough to use a very similar argument, in a different context: marijuana   
   legalization. If you accept any such argument then you accept that the   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)