As I understood his argument, it had nothing to do with ease of duplication. Instead, it was about ownership. His contention that the creators (who are by implication the owners) of intangible things have rights too is not invalidated by technology.
1. just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean you should do a thing [this nulls out the whole "b-b-but technology makes this possible now!" argument; for bonus points think of the implications of your stance regarding the availability of nuclear weapons]
2. you don't have a right to other people's work, automatically, by default, for free
3. if they make it available for free and/or say copy all you want -- that's fine, do it
4. ... but if they do not, you should honor their wishes regarding their own creation
5. ... if despite that, you do not, then you are unethical
1. The abuse of these rights by corporations. [e.g. 'patent-mills' that just crank out patents on any idea that pops into the heads of their engineers, even if it's just falls into the formula: "everyday object + {computers,internet} = brand new idea" or "patented idea 1 + {internet,computers} = patented idea 2" ]
2. The egregious way with which Congress/Corporations have extended the duration of IP rights to levels of absurdity that boggle the mind. Do people really believe that NBC would have had no reason to create a radio, and then television network if they were not guaranteed to still have copyrights on all of their content in the year 2010? Do you think that the person that wrote the "Happy Birthday" song, wouldn't have written it if they weren't guaranteed to hold a copyright until the year 2030 (not to mention that they took the melody from an earlier song, probably without licensing it... the horror)? From Wikipedia:
> The Summy Company registered for copyright in 1935, crediting
> authors Preston Ware Orem and Mrs. R.R. Forman. In 1990, Warner
> Chappell purchased the company owning the copyright for U.S. $15
> million, with the value of "Happy Birthday" estimated at U.S. $5
> million.[5] Based on the 1935 copyright registration, Warner claims
> that U.S. copyright will not expire until 2030, and that unauthorized
> public performances of the song are technically illegal unless
> royalties are paid to it.
> 2. The egregious way with which Congress/Corporations have extended the duration of IP rights to levels of absurdity
I agree, but I've never seen anyone take a stand against that abuse. Eg: TPB steals from everyone, including independent artists, Open Source contributors, and people who support copyright reform.
I have a problem with having to respect the wishes of an author regarding to a copy of her work that I hold. Especially when the copy is on my computer. The reasons are simple: computers copy things around. They don't move them. Therefore, I can't really give that song I have on my computer. I can only give a copy of it. And maybe delete my copy afterwards.
Now there's the real problem: the author would have me delete my copy, because it simulate the inconveniences of physical supports, which help her sustain her business model. There is a clear conflict between me potentially hurting the revenue stream of the author, and the author wanting me to artificially restrain my behaviour. I don't know how to solve it. But actively deleting my copy of each work I "give" or "lend" can't be the solution.
I also believe it shouldn't.
Why? Because it is the same song we have been hearing from the record companies for years, and that hasn't changed that many opinions.
And I don't even feel sorry for them - do the world really need another love song? Because if not, we should consider killing copyright.
And I won't drop one tear if Disney goes bankrupt - after all they took all the stories from the public domain.
Much, if not all, of this seems cultural, and inconsistent. Suppose I spend some time dreaming up a fabulous hair style. I plan to earn a living giving people this hair style. I go out and about, people see me with my fabulous hair style, and many like it. So they copy it, giving themselves and their friends the same hair style.
Do I have a supportable claim to ask, and expect, that no one may copy my hair style without my permission, without paying me? I can't imagine too many people would consider this a plausible idea, nor would many people be sympathetic.
For one, most folks would simply say, "Hey, you go out in public and people can see and easily copy your hair style! What did you expect?" "But", you reply, "just because they can doesn't mean they should."
Suppose too that I'm wearing a shirt that clearly says "Do Not Copy My Fabulous Hair Style." Does it change anything? Do my wishes regarding what I've created supersede reasonable expectations of what people are going to do, and what people think they are entitled to do?
People are constantly coming up with new things of varying originality and difficulty of creation. A turn of phrase. Color combinations in their dress or on their Web site. And no one is allowed, by default, to copy these things without prior permission and/or renumeration? That's crazy. Might as well outlaw culture.
Are restrictions on copying to be applied based on some expected financial gain? That's getting pretty circular; the gain is usually based on the expected scarcity. Are restrictions to be based on how hard it was to create something? That's just bizarre.
The arguments for not freely copying things seem based on a) the one who thinks of something gets to make the rules, and b) work should be rewarded. But there are so many instances where these don't apply that I don't see any consistent rationale other than that's just how the culture evolved based on the current technology and expectations of scarcity, plus the dictates of government meant to achieve some particular social or economic ends (as opposed to protecting some natural right).
You are right. It has nothing at all to do with duplication or how easy it is. One of technology's greatest and most subtle tricks is the elimination of scarcity. Its not that I can take one for myself (no matter how easy or hard it might be), its that when I do, I don't take yours. It up-ends the economic apple cart in a way that is very non-intuitive and difficult for the human mind to grasp via "common sense".
Its easy to comprehend a lower and lower marginal cost per unit but once that cost reaches the zero limit, it seems that the formulas that our current economy depend on become undefined.
Technology doesn't invalidate the rights of owners/creators, it forces us to completely reevaluate what ownership means. How to "pay" the author might not even be a meaningful question in the economy that results.
We are fortunate that we get a long trial run on things as frivolous as music and moving picture stories before rep/raps bulldoze us on their way through to Star Trek replicators.
Agreed, technology has some interesting effects of the notion of ownership: consider sampling and wikipedia to name but two. It affects the economic argument much more than the moral one; technology doesn't so much invalidate the concept of ownership as make certain modes of ownership uninteresting.
Agreed, technology has some interesting effects of the notion of ownership: consider sampling and wikipedia to name but two. It affects the economic argument much more than the moral one; technology doesn't so much invalidate the concept of ownership as make certain modes of ownership uninteresting.
edit: spelling