Why Do Copyright Monopolists Think They Can Just Take Somebody Else’s Work?

http://torrentfreak.com/why-do-copyright-monopolists-think-they-can-just-take-somebody-elses-work-130203/

by fraqed • 13 years ago

11 14 13 years ago

ams6110• 13 years ago

OP is arguing against the ability to sell a "license to use" as opposed to selling ownership interest. To say that any sale must transfer ownership would pretty much render moot the whole concept of copyright and patent.

rvkennedy• 13 years ago

The clue is in the name: the person who owns the "copyright" is the one who has the right to copy it. This has been the case since the Licensing of the Press Act of 1662, so we shouldn't be shocked by it.

You can't transfer ownership of the IP to the Avengers Movie, because only one person or entity at a time can own it. That's why for example, we license software as developers, instead of selling it to the end user.

taproot3• 13 years ago

If transfer of ownership never takes place, then why do they keep trying to call it theft?

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

stch24• 13 years ago

So what is the ideal scenario, in the author's mind, for how creative work should be compensated? Let's say I wrote a book, and I want to get compensated for the time I spent writing the book. In his ideal world, I would ____________ ?

My impression from the article is I would sell one copy to one person, that person, or future recipients of a copy, would copy it for every single other person that might want to read it, and then I would just wait and pray for donations. Am I misinterpreting his article?

Falkvinge• 13 years ago

How shall the artists get paid?

http://falkvinge.net/2011/01/31/how-shall-the-artists-get-pa...

Cheers, Rick

stch24• 13 years ago

1. "Not my problem"

3. "They'll figure it out"

4. "Not my problem"

5. "They'll figure it out"

The only legitimate argument I'm seeing there is point (2), and even then, all you're saying is that in absolute dollars the music industry is generating more profit -- ignoring population growth, accessibility to more music (iTunes, Amazon music), etc. -- so it's very hard to say whether the music industry profits grew despite piracy, because of piracy, or independent of piracy. I'm sorry, but that's extremely unconvincing. Given the article in the OP and this reply, I can't really see the difference between your current viewpoint and pure selfishness/FYGM.

genwin• 13 years ago

That's how I interpreted it. Once you sell a single copy of something you made, there are now two equal owners of it. The new owner worked really hard to make that copy, so it's fair.

chii2• 13 years ago

What about this:

Prior to creating the work, the author solicits "sponsors" (or backers, in the kickstarter terminology). Each sponsor would recieve equal rights as the author. How much each sponsor pays is up to the negotiations between the author and the sponsors.

When the negotiation/solicitation finishes, the author will be paid the agreed amount by the sponsors. This is the entirety of the money the author will recieve for the works, there is no royalties received from the sponsors.

The sponsors recieve the work when it is complete, or if the author doesn't finish, then the author will be sued for contractual obligations, just like how you today if you hadn't fulfilled your contract.

The sponors have full, but non-exclusive rights to the work. How they use those rights is up to them.

stch24• 13 years ago

What's the incentive to be a sponsor vs. someone who receives a copy after the work is finished?

Why Do Copyright Monopolists Think They Can Just Take Somebody Else’s Work?

Related Stories