Thirty years? Why have copyright at all? I've yet to hear a good argument that doesn't boil down to "because my business model deserves to be profitable."
Intellectual property isn't a scarce resource. I look forward to the day we all exploit that. We'll find new business models, ones that take advantage of being able to build on all proir human knowledge, and we'll all be more productive because of it.
You need some amount of copy protection so that people/companies with large platforms can't immediately rip off independent authors and sell their work before the author's version can get any word of mouth. (Where "sell" probably means "distribute with ads" since there's no copy protection.)
4-5 years of copy protection would prevent this, and that's on the very safe end.
You’re assuming that we still want the “sell-with-ads” model to be the model to make money from producing works. I’m not sure this is what we want; we now see what ad-optimized media looks like.
Why pay programmers at all? Your labor should be free too, and I'm sure we can make some awesome business models if you get paid five bucks an hour or less. You can go make money getting people to support you on patreon.
Patreon is actually changing a lot of that. Kurzgesagt did a video a while back explaining that content copying was bad for their business model, that was before they join patreon. I give every month to them and I never donate besides this and wikipedia. So I’m betting they are making tons of $ through patreon.
Because someone needs something written, and they hire you to do it. Or because you want to write, and then others discover that they like what you write, and they want to help you write more. None of this requires copyright, and in fact copyright make some works illegal to author, therefore it restricts authorship.
> Or poets?
As above.
> Or scientists?
Someone needs research done. Someone wants to do research. Someone wants to fund research. None of this requires copyright.
> Or SWEs?
"Hey I need this software, can you write it for me? Here's how much I'm willing to pay for it."
Copyright has never been relevant in my career as a software developer. If anything, developers giving up their exclusive rights via free software licenses has been a massive boost for the entire field and everyone is building products atop someone else's work. That's a good thing!
I only with copyright didn't restrict our field so much.
> we don't work for free.
Indeed, someone needs my labor and they pay for it. Pretty simple.
> Or would you prefer to drive the aforementioned out of business.
Strawman. GP argued against particular business models that are reliant on copyright. That's not an argument against these entire fields, and indeed most of them would continue to exist without copyright.
But yes; I'm ok with letting people with poor business models go out of business.
Abandoning copyright would enable other business models that are currently difficult or impossible to conduct legally. I think the status quo is bad, because there are many services I can think of that would benefit end users (and which I would pay for) but which are not going to happen because of copyright.
>Because someone needs something written, and they hire you to do it. Or because you want to write, and then others discover that they like what you write, and they want to help you write more. None of this requires copyright, and in fact copyright make some works illegal to author, therefore it restricts authorship.
How many authors have you hired recently? Should I go hire an author next time I want to read a book, and pay him/her a living wage for the 1000 hours or so it takes to write a good novel? Hire a trope of actors, director, SFX team next time I want to watch a movie? If I am unsatisfied with the waterproofness of my jacket I am supposed to contract GORE to provision scientists and a lab to research a better membrane? I'm sorry but this isn't passing the sniff test - none of those activities scale without IP protection.
>Strawman. GP argued against particular business models that are reliant on copyright. That's not an argument against these entire fields, and indeed most of them would continue to exist without copyright.
Your assertion that I am making a strawman is silly. Those fields rely in their entirety on IP protection - books, science, engineering. Pagerank becomes open source and what is google.com? Just a commodity - never would have got off the ground. Those fields exist[0] because of defensible IP.
> Someone wants to fund research
No one wants to fund research, people want to sell the things research brings.
>Indeed, someone needs my labor and they pay for it. Pretty simple.
No one needs my labor (or yours) if they can't sell the output (unless you wait tables or lay bricks). How does one sell intellectual output without IP protection? Patreon is not a valid answer.
[0]At any level that can be described more intensive than 'hobby'. And I don't know about you, but I'd like there to be a way for the the people working on vaccines to be working on vaccines as their day job. To say nothing of media I've enjoyed consuming.
How much federally funded research becomes a product you (or anyone can use) that isn't protected by some intellectual property? Hint: its not a lot. Because people don't work for free, chemicals don't buy themselves, research and development needs to be paid off. If you want to upend capitalism and the market economy, fine, but figure out a sensible way to do that before trying to break the current system by removing the mechanism the creators and inventors and commercializers of new and novel things are able to do that.
I am talking about IP-protections more generally than 'copywrite' alone per parent's discussion. Moving copywrite more in line with patents would be a sensible change.
Oh, I'm using it that way, too. (Just don't tell anyone I'm not using hjkl for navigating; my Kinesis Advantage keyboard has cursor keys in sensible locations.)
But there's at least one attempt at a nice remapping for dvorak.
Incorrect. While most insider trading prosecutions are done under antifraud provisions of the law, and SEC rules adopted ubder that provision, there is also law directly limiting certain trades of certain insiders (e.g., 15 USC 78p).
> Insider trading is something the courts came up with based on an expanded meaning of fraud.
Even to the extent that we're talking about the kind of insider trading that is prosecutrd,ubder antifraud provisions, this is somewhat misleading in that those provisions are themselves framed differently than the common law definition of fraud, it is not,that the courts have applied an expanded definition of fraud.
Wait, are you saying insider trading laws are actually just extended use of fraud laws, but no laws specifically for insider trading? If so, I find that very interesting.
Yes. There is no law against insider trading, just the SEC and judges thinking it's really bad so we should punish it even if Congress never got around to passing an actual law against it.
See here for one example [0]. The SEC does have rules against it, so it's not entirely on a case-by-case basis [1]. It's just the SEC isn't supposed to write law.
> See here for one example [0]. The SEC does have rules against it, so it's not entirely on a case-by-case basis [1]. It's just the SEC isn't supposed to write law.
> There is no express statutory definition of the offense of insider trading in securities.3 The SEC prosecutes insider trading under the general antifraud provisions of the Federal securities laws, most commonly Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5, a broad anti-fraud rule promulgated by the SEC under Section 10(b). Section 10(b) declares it unlawful “[t]o use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security . . . any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.”4 Rule 10b-5 broadly prohibits fraud and deception in connection with the purchase and sale of securities. As the Supreme Court has stated, “Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 prohibit all fraudulent schemes in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, whether the artifices employed involve a garden type variety of fraud, or present a unique form of deception,” because “[n]ovel or atypical methods should not provide immunity from the securities laws.”5
Congress wrote some very broad anti-fraud laws, never amended them, and left it up to the SEC to exercise its discretion on what qualified as such practices.
And it doesn't write the law, it writes regulation. Which, on this specific subject, it absolutely is supposed to under the law [0] (and if the law didn't specifically authorize the regulations and criminalize violations of them, the regulations wouldn't support criminal prosecution.)
> There is no express statutory definition of the offense of insider trading in securities.3 The SEC prosecutes insider trading under the general antifraud provisions of the Federal securities laws, most commonly Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5, a broad anti-fraud rule promulgated by the SEC under Section 10(b). Section 10(b) declares it unlawful “[t]o use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security . . . any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.”4 Rule 10b-5 broadly prohibits fraud and deception in connection with the purchase and sale of securities. As the Supreme Court has stated, “Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 prohibit all fraudulent schemes in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, whether the artifices employed involve a garden type variety of fraud, or present a unique form of deception,” because “[n]ovel or atypical methods should not provide immunity from the securities laws.”5
https://f5bot.com/