Imagine A World Without Joost

Word.

Wow. That original article is utterly moronic… how did these people get paid to write that for a newspaper? Frightening.

Anyways, glad you laid the proverbial smack down on those stupid, radical chic buffoons.

Amen!

I think they deserve commendation for the word “usufruct.” I had to look that up, and damn, I don’t have to look up that many words.

There’s a vast middle ground that I don’t see many smart people laying claim to — somewhere between the corporate copyright bullshit (cf. Mickey Mouse and the copyright extension act) and the everything-must-be-free dogma.

I think copyright lasts too long. I think more people should use alternatives to copyright like Craig (yes, just-right-of-Reagan Craig!) uses on his own site. But copyright isn’t a bad idea. My entire childhood was shaped by things made under copyright protection.

It seems a little harsh to joust with a dude name Joost. My guess is some little fellow in his Dutch boy clogs only wrote the ridiculous tome hoping for some “ownership” and “exploitation” from that hottie Marieke. As for their pooh-poohing of privatization, I’m confident this town would eat them both for lunch and spit them out like a couple of bad herrings.

Copyright infringement is not the same as theft… they’re very different things according to the laws of most countries, so let’s keep ourselves intellectually honest.

It SHOULD be the same as theft… it certainly steals royalty paychecks from me. That’s why I get pissed at friends who Kazaa .mp3 files and who buy pirated DVDs on the streets of NY. Sure you’re sticking it to the man and getting shit for free… but you’re also sticking it to the artist and robbing him/her of a paycheck.

I had no idea you were this easy, Craig.

While Joost and his ilk are honestly irrelevant in any substantial deliberations on copyright law, John does raise a real issue in the general debate: how long should a copyright be respected, before it becomes common property?

Which brings up the Copyright Term Extension Act (a.k.a. the Sonny Bono Copyright act).

It’s hard to argue that CETA was not an economic abomination, for it clearly had no impact on the creative incentives for established works. The only rational argument for CETA is that it will incent you, Craig, to create “better” works that hold a higher likelihood of generating substantial revenues (properly discounted) 50 to 70 years out.

(pardon me while I laugh)

So there is an honest debate to be had on how long does monopoly status have to be granted in order to incent a creative work. Candidly, I have a hard time understanding why a copyright should be granted beyond 30 years. 50 years is a stretch. 70+ years (yeah, wait till Mickey gets to be 69 years old…) is an absurdity; or would you argue otherwise?

lt

Wow, I really missed something big (okay, two things big: Mickey is greater than 70 years old :-)

It’s 70 years beyond the lifetime of the author.

Now that’s just plain silly.

I’ll go ahead a stake some claim to that middle ground John A. describes. I do have an issue with the way copyright has been extended, although I personally stand to gain from that extension.

Furthermore, I’m obviously in support of the creative commons concept to an extent, as I currently offer a fairly liberal license for the material I write on this website (if you click on the Creative Commons icon at the bottom of the left column, you can read about that).

Frankly, I think most people land somewhere in the middle of Sony Bono, RIP, and the Joosts of the world.

And yeah, I kept saying Joost because it’s funny.

Lastly, for those of you too lazy to look up “usufruct” (and honestly, did ANYONE know what that word meant?), here’s the definition.

The legal right of using and enjoying the fruits or profits of something belonging to another.

It’s pronounced “use a frucked”.

The third situation for which we must conceive a solution is when a certain artistic creation is not likely to flourish in a competitive market, not even with a one-year usufruct. It may be the case that the public still has to develop a taste for it, but that we still find, from the perspective of cultural diversity, that such a work must be allowed to exist. For this situation it would be necessary to install a generous range of subsidies and other stimulating measures, because as a community we should be willing to carry the burden of offering all kinds of artistic expressions a fair chance.

And what then are the criteria to get these subsidies? Surely some kind of jury is necessary to decide whether a work must be allowed to exist? And what will that jury be? Exactly, another cultural monopoly… So actually Joost suggests the same shit in a different package.

After all, they (the artists) would no longer have to challenge - and bow down to - the market dominance of cultural giants.

I really don’t understand how one can come this conclusion… No copyright means a big corporation can take an idea and sell it as their own, without having to pay anything to the real author. Seriously who’s going to sell more cd’s? The singer songwriter on the street with a few self-produced cd’s or a big company that can sell to stores etc.

Wait a second — how would this 1-year use-a-frucked work for a screenwriter, considering that it can easily take longer than a year (sometimes much longer) to produce the resulting film?

And why should such a use-a-frucked only apply, as Joost proposes, to works that require a sizeable initial investment? Isn’t that a relative term? After all, a $5 million dollar movie isn’t any more of a sizeable investment for Time Warner than is the time and equipment required for a songwriter recording a tune in his basement.

I agree that Joost is a fun(ny) word to say, or type.

I do have another question, though: how does CETA specifically benifit you? If you are fortunate enough to lay a claim on all future revenues derived from your works, how does stretching out the claim period - after your death - add materially to the value of said claims?

[Especially when one considers it is impossible to forecast 5 years into the future, let alone 70, and the present value (what you or your estate would collect) from those cash flows are so drastically discounted. For example, a dollar in seventy years, at a reasonable discount rate given the risk (10%), is worth 1/10th of a penny today.]

I totally agree with you that the Joosts’ of the world are repackaging emperically discredited “ideas,” and it’s annoying to see them cropping up with increasing frequency in the IP debate. But it’s important that those who advocate wisdom of private property incentives not swing directly - or indirectly - over to sustaining regressive monopolistic property “rights.”

Best,

Lee

When Craig says he’s in favor of the Creative Commons concept to an extent, I think he’s making a very important distinction: some stuff you want to give away, and some stuff you don’t.

The creator of a work should choose “how free” he wants to make it. And if that answer is, “not at all free,” then the law has to decide how long that decision stands. The life of the author plus 70 years is too damn long. To my thinking, the lifespan of the author is a pretty terrible way to measure anything, since it overvalues an author’s early work and undervalues his later work.

I’m too lazy/busy to look it up, but my recollection was that US copyright used to be 30 years, with the option to extend another 30 years. There’s a lot to be said for having the author take a proactive step to “re-cover” his work by copyright.

Probably my greatest frustration is with out-of-print books. Current copyright law makes it very difficult to get obscure texts for university classes, for example.

Wow. Weird flashback to Atlas Shrugged (which I read way back in college). Joost’s writings on copyright reminded me of a passage in the book about an unsuccessful writer who was trying to get books limited to only print runs of 10,000 or so, so that all writers would have an equal chance to see their work in print.

Same deal here. Joost’s arguments boil down to: corporations need copyright to market (one supposes he believes to be) inferior artists to the world. Absent copyright, superior artists (and I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess that he views himself or Marieke as such) will be able to showcase their art (now no longer unfairly subjugated by capitalist pigs ;P).

It’s all about your own self-interest, isn’t it Joost?

‘It’s pronounced “use a frucked”.’

Actually it’s pronounced “you are fucked.”

Lee, you’re right that CETA will be of minimal use to me after I’m dead, but my children will continue to profit from the residuals I collect on my work long after I’m gone, and those residuals are only made possible by the corporate ownership of my movies…

It’s a fambly thing. :)

Still, I agree with John that we’re in a weird place now where it’s quite clear that there’s a trend…and not a good one…towards permanent copyright. Sooner or later, someone will bring it up, and there will be an enormous monied interest in seeing that happen.

I’d be against that. There is great value in having a public domain.

I understand.

I suppose what I was trying to offer is from a discounted cash flow perspective - which is a rational way to assess economic incentive for the creator - the difference between 14, 30, 50, & 70 years post death is immaterial on the value of the copyright; even for the estate inheritor. So I would argue we’re already in the realm of a de facto permanent copyright.

But enough of this geek speak. I’m missing the cool thunderstorm going on outside.

Best,

Lee

Here’s a link to a timeline of U.S. copyright law:

http://arl.cni.org/info/frn/copy/timeline.html

The long and short of it: 1790: 14 years, renewable once. 1831: 28 years, renewable once for 14, to normalize with Europe. Starting 1886, the Berne Convention begins, and eventually all hell breaks loose, with copyright durations extending far beyond any sensible limitation.

Copyright infringement is illegal and (generally) immoral, but it is not acceptable to call it theft. As writers, we should be clarifying language, not obfuscating the discussion by conflating terms.

Piracy is the word most often bandied about (and part of the name of the various infringement statutes). But technically, copyright infringement is a trespass.

Edit to my original post (since, sadly can’t be edited) - looked up the link and I take back what I said - I think Joost is simply anti-American. His objection to copyright is that too much popular art comes from our shores and not somewhere else.

There is a need for greater clarity and usability in our copyright laws, but Joost’s proposal isn’t it.

Sunday’s NY Times had a great article on the cost of clearances for documentaries. The best example was of a filmmaker who was shooting a conversation between a mother and child that was interrupted when the mother’s phone rang. They captured the child’s frustration at this interruption. Only, the mother’s ringtone was the theme to Rocky which the label first wanted them to pay $10,000 to use.

Now, there are good arguments to be made that this was fair use: The mother had already paid to use the ringtone; the filmmaker captured her using the phone on a public street. But who wants to go through the hassel and cost of litigating the point?

Just last week, a partner and I passed on adapting a work that is partially in the public domain due to concerns about the litigious reputation of the literary estate.

From now on, when I go to see a play or script reading that I authored and has been somewhat abused at the hands of a neophyte director entralled of their own vision and / or actors who look at the lines on the page and decide that the word written there are simply guidelines rather than something that has to be said, from now on my official announcement will be, upon viewing the end product, is “I’ve been frucked,” because it seems to best describe the situation.

Just-right-of-Reagan-Craig?

Uh … isn’t Reagan, like, dead?

Excellent. I’m sure I’m not the only person who actually paid for everything on my iPod, but it feels like it sometimes. The point that any creator is free to give away the product of his or her labor calls out poor old Joost for the user he is.

I hope some of the folks a WA see this, Craig. I think you could suddenly turn them into rabid capitalists for ten minutes. And good luck getting your neighbor to give you his nice big house.

Hey! I was to the left of Reagan (but just to the left).

Better than being Gandhi’s nipple, or whatever August was. :)

Craig;

As it happens, I think you’ve missed the point of what Joost and co REALLY want and why they want it.

These are the people that want to be able to make their own episodes of Star Trek with a camcorder and sell them to other Trekkies. And so forth.

It’s an extension of those kids who make icons and stuff out of various TV shows (why is it always sci fi stuff???) and put it up on their livejournals with big temper strops about “Don’t steal my work!”, without realising just how funny they are.

These folks really want to be able to be free to rip off other peoples shit because they aren’t talented enough to think up anything of their own!

On the serious points: maybe my opinion on this will change once I have kids of my own, but frankly they can go earn their own fucking money! No riding daddy’s coat tails.

Seventy years after death is way too long.

Mr. Abrasive:

Yeah, you might be right. Lee Golberg’s relentless and well-justified skewering of “fanfic” is a good example of righteous authorial outrage against the horde of wannabees and ripoff artists.

Your dismissivness of the ideas presented in the article you’ve referenced is appalling. I’ll concede the authors may not be the most articulate (perhaps English is a second, third, or fourth language for them) in thier expression. Your response, however, left me feeling as if I’d just had an encounter with my sixth grade bully.

As an example, you wrote: “Of courst, Joost and Marieke, who apparently never met a globalization cliche they didn’t like (and yeah, I just used a cliche to make fun of people who use cliches), disagree with my assessment.”

Nice. Way to project. And “no”, they didn’t “disagree with your assessment.” You’re responding to their writing, not the other way around.

The rest of your post employs similar re-wording, logic leaps, couple of strawmen thrown in (my fave: “I would very much like my democratic right to freedom of land and dwelling exchange, but the guy in that really nice house up the street doesn’t seem interested.” Allow me to dignify THAT with a response!), and the not-so-subtle insinuation that we shouldn’t consider Joost’s ideas because….well, because OMFG HIS NAME IS TOTALLY TEH FUNNAY!!!1!111!

And while you’re discussing the impact of copyright law, it’s only fair to point out the recent Libaray of Congress report on the subject. An exerpt:

“The usual allowances for copying or distributing given to older works by federal law under the orphan works clause do not and will not apply to pre-1972 recordings, further impeding public access. Because only the copyright owner can legally make old recordings available, historical recordings are at risk of physical loss as well as of passing, unnoticed, from the nation’s aural memory.”

“One consideration by Congress in extending copyright protection to owners for such a long period was to give those owners an incentive to reissue, and thereby preserve, older recordings. How successful has this incentive been over time? This report answers that question by quantifying the commercial accessibility of recordings published before 1965. Recordings, like other publications, do not usually remain in print in perpetuity. On the basis of statistical analysis, this report shows that most pre-1965 recordings have not been reissued for public sale and are accessible only to those who visit the institutions that archive historical recordings or to individuals with access to private collections.”

Marx, indeed.

To: Jeremiah -

I will let someone else argue with you over the merit of “Joost’s” position, though I will posit that from what I read of Craig’s post, Craig did a pretty good job of breaking down the ideas and why they are wrong with his own thoughts and ideas, and did so very well, with humor and reason and he was very articulate - and point of fact, I believe the humorous takes with Joost’s name came about in the comment section and are not the focus of the original post. But if the author has been burdened with the name Joost this long, I’m sure he’s used to it. But Craig’s post was not “We should disagree with this guy ‘cause his name is Joost”, not at all, and if you think that, you didn’t read it closely.

I take issue with your position that Joost should be excused for what he has written because he wasn’t that articulate about his position because, perhaps, English is maybe his second or third or fourth language. Not an excuse. We are writers, being articulate on the page and screen and news column, any written word anywhere, that is what we are supposed to do well. If Joost is going to pick a hot button, controversial idea to write about then I would suggest that he (or she, I guess) strive to be as articulate as possible. Or write it in his or her native tongue and let someone else translate it - because it needs to be articulate, otherwise why should we take what Joost says seriously at all?

And Craig -

Isn’t almost EVERYONE to the left of Reagan?

But I admit that I find the idea of being Ghandi’s nipple very intriguing. I didn’t know that was a political position one could take and I’m gonna have to look into it.

A few things to remember:

1. Copyright is not just a Western concept. The Romans and early Chinese both had copyright before the West. HOWEVER

2. Until the late 19th Century, the US did not protect the Copyright of non-American products. That was an active policy decision to promote innovation within the country. Yet, the US currently uses trade agreements to force pro-US copyright laws on developing nations. A classic case of do what we say, not what we do.

3. Copyright’s origins is in the charter for the booksellers. The Government gave the booksellers limited monopoly rights in exchange for the right to censor the books they were selling. It was a deal between corporate and government interests, nothing to do with the people who wrote the books.

4. When the British enacted the Statute of Anne (around 1688) it was for the purposes of ‘promoting education’. It was designed strike a balance between the needs of the individual artist (the maker) to recoup their sunk investments (and make profit) while also providing a means to spread that good to the world. A lot of people still think thats a good idea.

5. The Booksellers challenged the right for copyright to vest in *authors* for the next 50-75 years after that (they argued that authors shouldn’t have copyright). Since then, the courts and legislature try to strike a balance between the booksellers (metaphorically), the authors and the users. Until recently, when it seems the power has shifted in favour of the *distributors*

6. Property requires two things to be property: the ability to exercise dominion and the ability to exclude. The purpose of copyright is to give ‘intellectual goods’ those characteristics. Its not, by nature, property.

7. The ‘moral imperative’ of copyright has always been highly contended. The Nashville Recording Association has stipulated that they consider the public domain to be ‘legalised piracy’. The Dr Seuss Estate made similar claims about how the public domain would ‘pervert’ their fathers work. :)

8. Copyright infringement is not theft. This is a legal fact. Get over it.

9. However, this doesn’t mean that copyright infringement is not legally and morally wrong.

10. Copyright *has never been* about protecting the rights of artists. Its been about striking the balance between the interests of creators and users. (Sorry for harping on balancing, but its a pretty important point)

11. Why should an artist’s family be granted a legal and economic benefit from a good produced some 50 years earlier? Its welfare which discourages innovation and assumes that copyright owners are a ‘special class’ which need special treatment from the coporatised state. There may be good reason for this, but to be legal policy they need to be clearly elucidated

12. I disagree with John August that there aren’t any smart people that promote the middle ground. There are many: Lawrence Lessig, Richard Posner, Kim Weatherall, the full bench of the Australian High Court (whom just handed down one of the most intelligent decisions regarding the differences been pseudocopyright, paracopyright and actual copyright in anglo-american jurisprudence), - to name a few. The legal fraternity is full of copyright middle-grounders. The reason these views don’t get widely disseminated is that rational tempered arguments are… well… boring. We like to get angry.

13. As Warren Ellis once said - those who usually want art to be free are often those who don’t make it.

14. The Creative Commons is awesome. Its pro-copyright, pro-law and its pro-artists because its about artists defining categorically and explicitly how they want their work to be used. The challenge is getting people to respect CC licences.

15. Since the 1970s there has been rapid deregulation and general liberalisation of the industrial market in the first world. Concurrently, copyright and intellectual property protectionism has only increased. Who do you think is pulling those strings? It isn’t artists and it isn’t consumers. Remember, the 70 years copyright extension ONLY applies to corporately owned copyright - largely on the argument that corporations are immortal (and sociopathic).

16. I understand and sympathise with your anger. A lot of people *claim* to speak on behalf of artists to give their arugment moral authority but I’m not sure how many of them actually talk to artists. Or even know any. Frankly, I’d love to sell my script about a serial killing chimpanzee for millions.

17. The legal definition of balance is ensuring no one is happy.

Whoa. That was long too.

Stuart:

I’m gonna need an acronym for I Have The Best Commenters On The Web.

IHTBCOTW? Awful. Something better. Our Commenters Are The Best. OCATB? Feh.

My Commenters Rock. MCR. Much happier.

MCR.

Great comment, very educational, and where I wasn’t learning something, I was agreeing with your basic opinions. Particularly #17.

Jeremiah:

Lighten up. I write comedy for a living. Some of what I wrote was serious.

Some was in Joost.

(owwwwwwww)

I will argue, however, that Joost’s command of English is just fine. So good, in fact, that he knew the word “usufruct” and you didn’t.

Putting aside stylistic quibbles, Joost is still plain wrong. So is Marieke.

And never compare me to teh web loosers again. :)

Do I not at least get an internship in MCR for all me hard work jousting with Joost’s defender Jeremieh? Lordy, I done been frucked less than 24 hours after I learned what it was …

And I cannot get the image of Ghandi’s nipple out of my head.

The place where Smiers and Van Schindjel go wrong is in their first sentence:

“Copyright was once a means to guarantee artists a decent income.”

No, it wasn’t. It was, since the Statute of Anne, a means to give authors (including artists) the right to benefit economically from their work.

Not the guarantee.

It’s not Marxism that underlies their position; it’s entitlement-ism.

-

Copyright does not exist in a state of nature, certainly not in any Randian Utopia. It is an intervention by the State to secure the well-being of a disadvantaged minority, i.e. writers and other creative people. Like any government program, of course, it is capable of abuse. But copyright, patents, and other kinds of intellectual property are responsible for the economic triumph of the West. As such, all good socialists ought to support it.

Ted touched in something I was thinking (but too chicken to jump in with). Why bash the Marxists? Contemporary Marxists aren’t really against getting paid. They’re just a little more aware of the implications of… everything - the system that creates the payment, the implications of the content of the work created under a particular pay system (e.g. the studio system), lots of things worth considering.

Who knew Craig was such a wingnut. Marxist platitudes aren’t a bit like free-market platitudes, of course. And I’m still smirking, insufferably, at the idea of Richard Posner as an exemplar of the sensible center.

While it’s nice for Karl to make a show in this thread (typically, far after Hegel, stating the obvious, and confusing everything…) I do feel there’s an opportunity for synthesis here. And it rests in accepting the following “truth” which even Karl would accept, but the ever anxious post-modernist would want to deconstruct:

• It is appropriate for a societal collective to assess what is best for that collective

So enter copyright protection as incentive to induce idea flow for said collective’s health, and consider it a subset of (and champion of) the Common Law vs. Civil Law poles of jurisprudence. From this view, it’s hard not to appreciate the economic benifits of the former (there is a statistically significant correlation between Commonl Law and a higher standard of living for a total population) and how enshrined authority (Fascists like Joost and his ilk) can manifest themselves in Civil Law societies, leading to stagnation. In short: Common Law constructs - like copyright protection - are good (yes! omg! a normative term!) to all but the most emperically blind among us.

All that remains is to determine prudent incentive period, which was (if I may assume) JA’s offering.

From here, I have a hard time understanding why it should be greater than the lifetime of the author. And while I could argue that it should be a great deal shorter, typically, that would miss the point of how humans assess opportunity cost. So make it a lifetime, and what the hell, throw in a decade for the ‘fambily’ ;-) and we’re good.

Funny now to look at America’s Constitution.

From this view, how does CETA make sense? It’s economically an order of magnitude beyond the rational investment horizon for Capitalists and reeks of creative progeny welfare. So if one really cares, Joost has done the “Creatives” of this blog a favor: he has defined an absurdity which brings into relief another.

There’s a balance to be had.

If said “Creatives” are willing to argue for what is right.

Imagine a world where people like Joost were getting their way. Hollywood would rush “Atlas Shrugged” into production, and even the most left-wing stars would line up for auditions.

Didn’t read all of this blog entry, haven’t read the original article, haven’t read most of these comments here. But I think it ought to be noted that they have a mighty fine grant system in the Netherlands.

In some countries, copyright is what keeps bread an’ butter on the table for starving artists. In others, it’s grants. Of course it’s never that simple in reality (I did write starving, did I not?), but I’d guess that to a Dutch viewpoint, artists are in no danger of actual starvation even though the masses’d exploite the crap outta their produce, while paying no royalties what so ever.

So think outside the box for a sec, mr. Big ‘Merkin Screenwriter, before you go and spill yer angsts on some fairly harmless Dutch people.

Yes - it’s socialism run rampant!!! The next thing you knew we might have legal pot and affordable health care.

Seriously, though, it’s an interesting (though completely unattainable) world they’re talking about. What kind of art would we see if there was little financial gain in it? If every novel, if every film, if every song, were free, what would people consume?

“If every novel, if every film, if every song, were free, what would people consume?”

I don’t see any reason to believe that people would be drawn to anything much different from what they are drawn to now, except that there would be a whole lot less of it available.

I like eggs.

I like Ted’s description of “entitlement-ism”, although I still think there’s a clear Marxist element of communal non-property doctrine inherent in Joost’s screed.

I’m glad the Not Dutch Foreign Agent brings up the issue of grants. He (or she) is correct when they say that the grant system ensures that no Dutch artist is in danger of actual starvation.

The problem with the Dutch system, however, is that its standard of quality of life for artists is that they don’t starve.

I prefer the U.S. system, which rewards artists according to the size and interest of their audiences.

nice page of background and style.=) have a super deeduper day.

Commentor Trevor is right in making the connection to Ayn Rand in Joost’s writing. This guy is no marxist. He is a libertarian capitalist. If he was a marxist he would be arguing for state solutions or a takeover of the means of production. Instead, he wants small business to be able to make money off of stolen creative work. His hero is the entrepreneur, the little guy who transforms the market with his creativity and freedom. This bs is coming straight from George Gilder and the other 90s new economy ‘mind-blowers.’ Copyright is established and enforced by the state and by laws, not by the free market. Joost wants a free market, and you don’t, Craig. Joost wants to eliminate regulation, just like Reagan.

Bet you guys didn’t know that Ghandi was a sex addict when he was young. :)

ANyways, almost anyone can write a screenplay these days with all the blogs and websites. Script Bandit is a very good resource for screen writers. They have about 500 scripts you can read and learn from, as well as information about film festivals and other resources.

Okay, I am a Dutch agent and I disagree with the grant system as it stands in this country. Grants are awarded few and far between, and the artists who don’t get one, get unemployment benefit, or, if they’re anything close to normally thinking human beings, hack it the way artists in every other country do; work and suffer and hope that someday, somebody will buy some of your work. My overall impression is that this system works discouragingly to the many talented people in my country; being commercial is frowned upon, but how else are you supposed to keep your head above water if you aren’t one of the favored subsidized few? Mediocrity seems to be the result, however sad that may be. Give me the system in the USA any day, where competition might be tough - to put it mildly - but you will have to produce your best work just to be in the running.

Did actually get round to reading the original article. I hang my head in shame; it was a prime example of sub-par thinking. I’m not too clear on what “globalization” stands for, but mostly I suspect it’s “all the bad things, y’know, with lots of money moving around”. Throw a “globalization” into the conversation and you’ve just spared yourself the trouble of having any thought processes of your own.

I don’t believe that ripping copyprotected media and sharing the contents is any kind of a right. Entertainment isn’t comparable with basic sustenance, housing or education which tend to fall into the rights department in my thinking. But I also find it very hard to believe that there is any significant loss of income for you creative types over pirated CDs or DVDs or whatnot.

I claim this based on my own observations. The objects of this observation are very few, so I admit that there is a possibility that I’m in the wrong with my assumptions.

I don’t do bittorrent or any of that stuff because I don’t have the time for it. But I have friends who do. They have countless gigabytes filled with copyrighted material the possession of which is not illegal around here. Yet.

The thing is, these friends of mine have a hand-to-mouth budget. I of course am not exactly savvy on their finances, but I don’t think they’d have much money to spend on movies, CDs or DVDs anyway. Ergo, the amount of money lost by their consumption of pirated content is essentially nil. To extrapolate on this; I rather suspect that most people these days don’t leave too much money lying on their bank accounts. Those who can afford it spend what’s left after the essentials on entertainment and nice things in general (including CDs and DVDs). Those who are not so well off have zero amount of spending power for unnecessary things. In this day and age, a Net connection is a necessity, but it is a necessity which also allows access to a great many things that make life just a little bit nicer. It’s really like suddenly finding a delicatessen in your own cupboard, right next to the iffy carton of oatmeal from last year.

This of course leads to the subject of stealing. To shorten this tirade a bit: I say pirating media is a victimless crime, and not much of a crime at that. If someone stole my bike, it’d have significant consequences on my life. That’s a crime. If a person of little means chooses a weeks worth of groceries and a downloaded movie for Friday nights entertainment as opposed to getting the DVD, well, if anyone loses sleep over that, they really ought to set their priorities straight.

Yet another thing: the consumption of media increases the consumption of media. Ten years ago, who bought VHS-tapes? I don’t know any figures, but what I’m seeing is a lot of people into movies, tv-series and music on a wholly different level than before. The guy who’d loyally watch every Bond rerun on the telly (zero amount of cash spent) now has the all the films in his shelf (at least 15 euros a pop).

What I suspect is that someone (probably the same guy who’s responsible for all this pesky globalization) is ogling the overall traffic of media on the Net (and how do they even count that, anyway?) whilst completely disregarding growth in other sectors. There’s no end to the greed of rich people, says my mom.

Joost also asserts:

“a few cultural monopolists who, aided by copyright, use their stars, blockbusters and bestsellers to monopolize the market and siphon off attention from every other artistic work produced by artists.”

Even if you believe that that art which is subsidized by large corporations dominates the landscape; does it really prevent art from flourishing? Instead, doesn’t it require that the art be that much better to compete with what is easily available? Also, is there really a limit on the public’s appetite or art and entertainment?

Regardless, copyright still protects the copyright owner from misappropriation. And is brilliant because it protects individual artists from having their works stolen by mega-corporations and it protects corporations from having their works stolen by individuals. How is that not a “democratic right” Joost?

Copyright length is utter BS.

Why don’t we extend the same legal rights to the owners of patents? hmm?

Imagine, the LCD screen, invented in 1970 by George Gray, would STILL be under patent!

Sheesh. Do you think technology would advance as quickly as it does if we had to pay royalties to a company for 70 years after the inventor died?

I mean, christ, think about it penicillin would still be patented!

20 years on copyright is plenty, and you should be damn happy with it.

Edward:

Patents must be limited for the reasons you state.

Intellectual property innovates nothing. It saves no lives, it increases no efficiency, it predicates no future technology.

That’s my answer to your hmmm.