• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Does society really *need* copyright laws to protect software, movies and music?

A

acemcmac

Lifer
And what's the worst that would actually happen if (and I know this will probably never happen) these protections were suddenly revoked? How would society, industry and commerce adapt?

Been scratching my head thinking about this and I'm interested in everyone else's thoughts.....
 
The incentive to innovate, create and invent would be gone. What happens when the reward for hard work and talent is taken away?
 
Originally posted by: Lonyo
Increase taxes and have a system where the government gives artists money? (But everything is "free")
Click to expand...

Yeah, communism is such a rousing success, right?
 
In the digital/music/games/movie world I think not much would change, the people that pirate already do.

Physical products are a different story.
 
Originally posted by: Gunbuster
In the digital/music/games/movie world I think not much would change, the people that pirate already do.

Physical products are a different story.
Click to expand...

A LOT would change. If anyone could copy DVDs/CDs and sell them, the stores would be flooded with copies that cost less, because the copier would have lower overhead than the original producers.
 
Originally posted by: acemcmac
And what's the worst that would actually happen if (and I know this will probably never happen) these protections were suddenly revoked? How would society, industry and commerce adapt?

Been scratching my head thinking about this and I'm interested in everyone else's thoughts.....
Click to expand...

Why would they produce stuff if they didn't get money then? Who would pay for things if people can just copy them for free? Why would anybody create anything, just to have somebody else steal it and use it as their own?
 
I think ultimately you'd just see things convert back over to the current format.

It'd be fun for a while. Free music! Free movies! Free Software! But eventually people would get fed up with shoddy media/image quality. Support would be completely and totally lacking. At some point people will have to put food on the table and a rent check in the mail so they'll turn to advertising and bundling in a bunch of "extras" that will just take away from the viewing experience and frustrate people to the point they will pay for the "filler free" products.

We've already got "free" software in the *nix scene, and we've got indie bands giving away music for free on websites and for the cost of production at concerts and promotional shows. But you don't see them really playing a significant role in the desktop O/S or music scene. We've got freebie short movies on the web but they don't really draw any major interest short of what's passed around on the web.

Maybe in the next centruy people will throw down the stuff that is pushed to them from major movie studios or music labels, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

Even if it did though, artists/movie makers/software developers have to put food on the table and pay for the rent. The consumers want a reliable product that is well produced. You simply can not maintain the needs of both producer and consumer on a "for free" basis.
 
Take an economics class, particularly a college level one. Most good teachers will explain why intellectual property rights are vitally important for countries like the US that have moved into service economies.
 
Are you kidding me? As rampant as piracy is these days when the punishment is a measly $250,000 fine (edit: for movies), you think anyone would pay for copyrighted works if copyrights didn't exist?
 
As with *nix, companies or people who have a need better software hire the programmers and do it themselves, moving the actual value of the software from something defined by a licence agreement to physical posession of the code and the labor used to make it.

I don't see the destruction of the movie and music industries as a bad thing.
 
Originally posted by: acemcmac
As with *nix, companies or people who have a need better software hire the programmers and do it themselves, moving the actual value of the software from something defined by a licence agreement to physical posession of the code and the labor used to make it.

I don't see the destruction of the movie and music industries as a bad thing.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter until it's your bull getting gored, huh? :roll:

 
As with *nix, companies or people who have a need better software hire the programmers and do it themselves, moving the actual value of the software from something defined by a licence agreement to physical posession of the code and the labor used to make it.
Click to expand...

That's not how small to medium businesses and a vast majority of end users work. They want something to work out of the box and not having to tweak it to their needs.

In the case of these people, you HAVE TO put the value on the license since it's a per head/per purchase item.

 
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: acemcmac
As with *nix, companies or people who have a need better software hire the programmers and do it themselves, moving the actual value of the software from something defined by a licence agreement to physical posession of the code and the labor used to make it.

I don't see the destruction of the movie and music industries as a bad thing.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter until it's your bull getting gored, huh? :roll:
Click to expand...

Software companies dont coordinate the systematic brainwashing and socialization of hundreds of millions of people. That, you owe to the cable news outlets, MTV, etc...

mental genocide
 
Originally posted by: vi_edit
As with *nix, companies or people who have a need better software hire the programmers and do it themselves, moving the actual value of the software from something defined by a licence agreement to physical posession of the code and the labor used to make it.
Click to expand...

That's not how small to medium businesses and a vast majority of end users work. They want something to work out of the box and not having to tweak it to their needs.

In the case of these people, you HAVE TO put the value on the license since it's a per head/per purchase item.
Click to expand...

good point.
 
Originally posted by: acemcmac
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: acemcmac
As with *nix, companies or people who have a need better software hire the programmers and do it themselves, moving the actual value of the software from something defined by a licence agreement to physical posession of the code and the labor used to make it.

I don't see the destruction of the movie and music industries as a bad thing.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter until it's your bull getting gored, huh? :roll:
Click to expand...

Software companies dont coordinate the systematic brainwashing and socialization of hundreds of millions of people. That, you owe to the cable news outlets, MTV, etc...

mental genocide
Click to expand...

So you want an end to their freedom so you can have freedom for... wait, WTF are you talking about?

The problem with elitists is that they so seldom make sense to anyone but themselves.
 
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Lonyo
Increase taxes and have a system where the government gives artists money? (But everything is "free")
Click to expand...

Yeah, communism is such a rousing success, right?
Click to expand...

We have never seen a truly Communist state as Marx envisioned it. Communism is preceded by the fall of capitalism and the gradual erosion of the state. Neither has happened...

Incidentally, the music industry doesn't reward talent and innovation. 1.) artists who write their music are growing fewer in number. 2.) You have talentless hacks like Ashlee Simpson and other teeny-boppers who see music as integral to their popularity as stars, so they sign up. There is a wealth of untapped talent out there which does not get recognized. 3.) Songs are recycled, song concepts are recycled, every single song sounds like the fifty that preceded it.

Ultimately, if copyright protections were released the worst that would happen is people would begin copying others' work (not that they don't do it already) and claiming it as their own, and that would be unacceptable.
 
Originally posted by: MadCowDisease
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Lonyo
Increase taxes and have a system where the government gives artists money? (But everything is "free")
Click to expand...

Yeah, communism is such a rousing success, right?
Click to expand...

We have never seen a truly Communist state as Marx envisioned it. Communism is preceded by the fall of capitalism and the gradual erosion of the state. Neither has happened...
Click to expand...

This argument is sooo tired. A true "Marxist" state has never existed because it is an impossibility. Humans cannot be like-minded worker bees. It goes against the very core of human nature.

Every attempt at Marxism as ended up being totalitarianism because oppressive force is needed in the vain attempt to keep the people from being, well, people.
 
It's a chicken and the egg thing. Which came first - movie/music stars...or people crying out for them?

John and Susie Q Public WANT big name artists and stars that they can seek out and watch or listen to. They want to say they own this album or saw that movie so they can talk about it at work or with their peers. They want to say they know who the billboard top 20 or whatever is. The music and movie industry are just pandering to this and exploiting it.

I'm not making a moral judgement one way or the other. I'm just saying that the general public is crying for pop icons and movie stars that they can associate a film or a song with. The various industries know this and make it so.

No name bands and stars are great...but the mass buying population doesn't care. They want big names and pretty faces.

The crumbling of the movie industry or music industry would just be rebuilt by this same desire and nothing will have changed.
 
Answer to the thread title: Yes.

Considering that piracy is already so rampant with all these copyright laws (even with those RIAA scare tactics) in place, and then all of a sudden people can legally copy all the software and media they wanted, absolutely no one will ever purchase the legal stuff anymore. "Why even buy when I can legally get it for free?" Then the entire industry gets wiped out altogether.
 
Originally posted by: MadCowDisease
Incidentally, the music industry doesn't reward talent and innovation. 1.) artists who write their music are growing fewer in number. 2.) You have talentless hacks like Ashlee Simpson and other teeny-boppers who see music as integral to their popularity as stars, so they sign up. There is a wealth of untapped talent out there which does not get recognized. 3.) Songs are recycled, song concepts are recycled, every single song sounds like the fifty that preceded it.

Ultimately, if copyright protections were released the worst that would happen is people would begin copying others' work (not that they don't do it already) and claiming it as their own, and that would be unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Somebody in the industry has the talent to sell music, therefore your entire argument is moot. They are not in business to apease your sense of artistic merit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top