Intellectual Property rights and the threat to Enterprise

[Zoë Sumra]

Most of your arguments pertain to patent. Why should they apply to copyright as well? The major reason I support copyright is that I want the authors I enjoy to be able to keep making a living by writing. If everyone can copy their work without consequence that becomes a very difficult proposition.

Entirely agreed. Just because the patent system is broken (which it patently (heh) is), why should someone be able to photocopy ADWD for resale or sell their ASOIAF fanfic for cashy money?

I very much doubt that widespread piracy will result in authors going unpaid.

Tell that to the YA author whose publishers are threatening to drop her over poor sales... though the illegal downloads of her last book, if added to her legit sales, would put her at the top of the NY bestseller list. Anecdote is not data, sure, but as Scot says, this is emerging technology. An easy Steamlike service could nip this off before it explodes, but if nothing like that emerges, piracy of books may well explode in the next few years. In a publishing environment that's already far more difficult to crack than it was twenty years ago, that situation would hurt all authors who aren't JK Rowling or GRRM or their like - the authors whose legit sales will easily cover the expenses.

[Shryke]

In a lot of cases IP is effectively the same thing as trade secrets, except worse because the competition aren't allowed to do things the new improved way even if they can figure out how.

Which forms of IP are? You realise patents (the most common form that would required development) are public knowledge right?

[Shryke]

Scot,

Are you sure that this is the case? The Swiss government did a study of file sharing and found that it has little to no impact on the amount of money spent on entertainment. That is, everyone in Switzerland can in principle download pirated music and movies without the possibility of repercussions, but people still spend money on them. Also, here's a little thought experiment made reality: given the choice of setting their own price on computer games, most people will pay more than the absolute minimum of 1 penny (not exactly free, but close enough).

I very much doubt that widespread piracy will result in authors going unpaid. Its main threat is to large corporations which spend a great deal on things unrelated to the creation of content in order to monopolize the attention of the masses and thus reap an insanely large profit from the limited amount of (often mediocre or outright lousy) content that they do produce. That model is only sustainable with progressively more draconian intervention from the governments of the world and there's a limit to how far the latter can go.

/sigh

You people do realise IP isn't just about piracy, right? Like, piracy isn't the be all and end all of IP violations, it's just the tiny dribble that slips through the cracks.

IP also protects artists from other large corporations and the like. And in most industries (non-gaming software is a nightmare), does a very good job at that.

[sologdin]

realise patents (the most common form that would required development) are public knowledge right?

that's the dime store answer. the real answer is that there's an art to drafting patents. best practices are to draft the claim as broadly as possible and to draft the specification so that only the patent owner really knows what it means.

[felice]

Do you really think that if the government was in charge of R&D in pharmaceuticals, we would all of the sudden develop drugs to cure (currently) un-curable diseases?

I think there would be more motivation to do so; in strictly business terms, developing a cure is an incredibly bad idea when far more money can be made by selling an indefinite course of drugs to slow the progress of a disease. I'm not saying pharmaceutical companies definitely are deliberately suppressing or avoiding the development of cures, but if they aren't/wouldn't, they're acting against the best interests of their shareholders, which is a big no-no in capitalist terms.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I think there would be more motivation to do so; in strictly business terms, developing a cure is an incredibly bad idea when far more money can be made by selling an indefinite course of drugs to slow the progress of a disease.

I don't think that makes much sense economically.

First, drug companies can really make significant profits for a drug only during the pendency of the patent. And the greater the benefit of the drug, the greater price it is going to be able to charge. A true cure would enable the drug company to charge the highest mark ups for that patent period. Moveover, those companies generally are competing against other companies who are developing their own drugs, and making a moderately effective "course of treatment" drug when you could have had a cure opens up the real risk that one of your competitors will beat you to the punch with either a cure (now that we know it is possible), or a more effective course of treatment drug. In which case, you've lost a lot of potential profits because your patented drug is now of little value.

And of course, even though finding a "cure" would mean you can't develop any additional drugs for that disease, there are buttloads of other diseases/conditions out there in which to invest your research dollars. Make a shitload of money finding and selling "THE CURE" for one disease, and then move on to try to develop the best possible drug for the next. Makes complete economic sense.

I'm not saying pharmaceutical companies definitely are deliberately suppressing or avoiding the development of cures, but if they aren't/wouldn't, they're acting against the best interests of their shareholders, which is a big no-no in capitalist terms.

Where you were overlooking the market effects above, I think you're overlooking the science here. I can't fathom a company starting off a research line of inquiry by deliberately avoiding research that might lead to a potential cure, because the lines of inquiry between "cure" and "really good drug" are very often going to be the same. You start off looking for you think has the most promising future, and see what that gets you. That's what the scientists involved will do. So your hypothesis really would require us to assume that the research scientists would be plugging away, but then deliberately turn away from the most promising avenues. Even if that did make the most economic sense (which I don't think is the case), I can't imagine that all those scientists, many of whom actually are living human beings with a conscience, are all going to remain complicit indefinitely over the cover up for a cure. That kind of thing likely could only stay quiet for so long, and then one of them would write a paper, or it would otherwise leak out, and the Warth of God would come down on the drug company that was deliberately avoiding cures.

It just doesn't make much sense on a "reality" level.

[SpicyTurkey]

How would you know that the specific arrangement of ideas in Martin's book existed before if nobody wrote it down?

It seems ludicrous to argue that the idea that there's a young boy who was thrown off of a window by an incestuous twin is destined to learn the ability to transfer his mind to an animal existed before Martin brought it about. Yes, the ideas of young boys, of falling off towers, of incest, of twins, of transferring consciousness to an animal, all existed in other work, but this specific arrangement, and the specific way that the story is told, is brought about by Martin and nobody else.

How do you know they didn't? When I open one of his books I see a very complex pattern of english words. The probability of someone else rearranging those words in that specific order is small, and would probably take the life of the universe for it even have the possibility of happening. Though the probability is still there.

So someone else may or may not have been able to write the same book as Martin had, but we shouldn't pay Martin for having actually done it?

Like, you know, I am not going to pay the plumber because, yes, he fixed the kitchen sink leak, but the leak may or may not have gone away on its own, over time. You never know.

I think Martin should be paid. He should be paid for the books he sells, not for the idea. An idea can still be used, and it would in no way affect Martin. Just because I use that idea doesn't mean I've "stolen" it. Stealing implies that he is no longer able to use it.

The last part is a red herring. You are paying the plumber for his scarce labor not the knowledge of fixing sinks.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

ST,

But without the knowledge of how to fix the sink in the first place paying the plumber for his labor would be rather foolish. Knowledge and ability to perform the labor desired is a necessary condition precedant of any contract.

[Greywolf2375]

How do you know they didn't? When I open one of his books I see a very complex pattern of english words. The probability of someone else rearranging those words in that specific order is small, and would probably take the life of the universe for it even have the possibility of happening. Though the probability is still there.

I think Martin should be paid. He should be paid for the books he sells, not for the idea. An idea can still be used, and it would in no way affect Martin. Just because I use that idea doesn't mean I've "stolen" it. Stealing implies that he is no longer able to use it.

The last part is a red herring. You are paying the plumber for his scarce labor not the knowledge of fixing sinks.

Wow...this is getting better and better. Your argument now is literally "an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters..."

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

How do you know they didn't? When I open one of his books I see a very complex pattern of english words. The probability of someone else rearranging those words in that specific order is small, and would probably take the life of the universe for it even have the possibility of happening. Though the probability is still there.

So you think we should order our economic/legal system based on something that is unlikely to happen during the life of the universe?

In any case, if the trillion monkeys on a trillion keyboards beat Martin to the punch, they are free to copyright their book, the same as Martin did. But they didn't, nor did they apparently publish their "idea" even without a copyright. And as you concede, the likelihood of anyone actually doing that is infintesimal. Couple that level of probability with the fact that they did not publish their book, and the conclusion that they did not write the book already is inescapable.

And theoretically, even if those trilliion monkeys developed their book after Martin, or developed it before but failed to publish, and could prove that they developed it completely separate from Martin, they'd have a good argument for the copyright not applying to them. Of course, because of your "life of the Universe" concession, the claim from the trillion monkeys would very likely be fraudulent, so they would not be able to prove it anyway.

I think Martin should be paid. He should be paid for the books he sells, not for the idea. An idea can still be used, and it would in no way affect Martin.

To say that taking away Martin's copyright would "in no way affect Martin" is simply ludicrous.

Stealing implies that he is no longer able to use it.

Except under your theory, you reduce the economic value of writing the content of a book to virtually zero, because anyone could take a copy of his book, copy the text (even just scan it), publish it, and sell it. The value becomes equal to the physical cost of production, with author content having little or no value at all. After all, given the negligible costs of converting a book to electronic format, sellers who expended virtually nothing to acquire the book and convert it to electronic format could sell it very cheaply. They'd have to, because the ease of entering that market would mean that there could be thousands of potential sellers who profit even if they only charge $.05/book.

[Maia]

Tell that to the YA author whose publishers are threatening to drop her over poor sales... though the illegal downloads of her last book, if added to her legit sales, would put her at the top of the NY bestseller list.

The argument that illegal downloads are somehow equivalent to lost sales is patently absurd, IMHO. Most people who downloaded probably didn't even crack the book open and most of those who did read it likely don't have the means to pay for it (either money or convenient payment method, given that it is an YA book).

Seriously, publishers should look at iTunes and Steam and provide their kid/teenage audience with a payment method that they can actually use to buy e-books, instead of insisting on credit cards, which in most of the world, this demographic isn't going to have.

Speaking for myself, I do download (completely legally) Apps and games that are offered for free on iTunes, and while I do end enjoying and using some few of them, I can confidently say that I would have never ever bought 90% of them, not even for a buck. And it is the same with illegal downloads, I am sure, only more so.

An easy Steamlike service could nip this off before it explodes, but if nothing like that emerges, piracy of books may well explode in the next few years.

As Steam's experiences in Russia - a country where use of software and games evolved exclusively through piracy, because it was the only way to obtain them, show, it can be done even after, if you make it attractive and convenient enough. But yes, the publishers shouldn't dawdle.

Re: taking care of an author's descendants - I couldn't care less. The original term of 14-28 years copyright was more than fair. I am not entitled to my parents pension for 70 years after they die - why should authors' descendants be? And having this privilege payed for out of my taxes, no less.

Also, look at this:

http://kriswrites.com/2011/11/16/the-business-rusch-how-traditional-publishers-are-making-money/

It seems, that piracy notwithstanding, publishers are making good money on the e-books. Unfortunately, the authors were too short-sighted to see the shift to a new technology and may be suffering because they gave away their e-book rights for cheap. No way is it the fault of technology itself, though.

[quirksome]

The argument that illegal downloads are somehow equivalent to lost sales is patently absurd, IMHO. Most people who downloaded probably didn't even crack the book open and most of those who did read it likely don't have the means to pay for it (either money or convenient payment method, given that it is an YA book).

Seriously, publishers should look at iTunes and Steam and provide their kid/teenage audience with a payment method that they can actually use to buy e-books, instead of insisting on credit cards, which in most of the world, this demographic isn't going to have.

Just responding to the bolded bit: if you're a child and have internet access in a first world country, you do likely have enough money in your household to pay for legal downloads. Even if you have to ask your parents first. If this means you need to set up a PayPal account with your parent's credit card, then this could be a suitable solution. Or reform the banking system and make it easier to get children's savings accounts accessible to the account holders, but that's an entire can o' worms there.

Speaking for myself, I do download (completely legally) Apps and games that are offered for free on iTunes, and while I do end enjoying and using some few of them, I can confidently say that I would have never ever bought 90% of them, not even for a buck. And it is the same with illegal downloads, I am sure, only more so.

I think you're definitely speaking only for yourself. I often spend £0.99 on a frivolous game/app/ebook/iTunes download so you need to rethink your viewpoint that everyone acts like you do.

Re: taking care of an author's descendants - I couldn't care less. The original term of 14-28 years copyright was more than fair. I am not entitled to my parents pension for 70 years after they die - why should authors' descendants be? And having this privilege payed for out of my taxes, no less.

:agree:

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Just responding to the bolded bit: if you're a child and have internet access in a first world country, you do likely have enough money in your household to pay for legal downloads. Even if you have to ask your parents first. If this means you need to set up a PayPal account with your parent's credit card, then this could be a suitable solution. Or reform the banking system and make it easier to get children's savings accounts accessible to the account holders, but that's an entire can o' worms there.

Maybe I'm missing something, but can't people buy prepaid VISA cards that contain a set amount of cash, and that can be used to buy things online?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Maia,

So, if you can't afford to pay for a book it's okay to steal it? By your logic that is the case.

[quirksome]

Right, I just want to find out where this Font of All Knowledge & Concepts is being stored while it waits for us to catch up to it.

:rofl:

Probably because your music is shit, your photography, too, and your writing even more so.

Hello Ser P! Calling out other boarders on their shit? I like you already.

[Maia]

Even if you have to ask your parents first. If this means you need to set up a PayPal account with your parent's credit card, then this could be a suitable solution.

It is inconvenient and here in continental Western Europe, leave alone farther East, many parents would be against it. Just use a solution that has been proven to work - provide pre-paid cards that can be purchased at retail. As iTunes' and Steam's successes have shown, it makes a lot of difference.

I often spend £0.99 on a frivolous game/app/ebook/iTunes download so you need to rethink your viewpoint that everyone acts like you do.

You misunderstand me. I definitely buy things on Appstore, things that I know that I'd like.

But of the stuff that I have downloaded _for free_ due to promotions, etc. (and I am somewhat picky re: what I download), I wouldn't have bought 90% of it, I just gave it a try because it was free. I don't doubt that it is the same with illegal downloaders.

Maia,

So, if you can't afford to pay for a book it's okay to steal it? By your logic that is the case.

I short - yes. Not on bread alone does a human survive. With the proviso that if you can pay for it, you should. Blame it on my childhood - I was born in USSR and know first-hand how much bootleg literature and entertainment contributed towards the fall of the Iron Curtain ;).

Not to mention that the government was rather creative re: their approach to international copyright too. It is a little known, but fun fact that "Wizard of Oz" was initially published in Russian under the name of the guy who had translated it and not Baum's.

Not that I don't find it pretty despicable, but I don't for a second think that all the hundreds of thousands of kids that read it should have been better off without.

[quirksome]

I short - yes. Not on bread alone does a human survive. With the proviso that if you can pay for it, you should. Blame it on my childhood - I was born in USSR and know first-hand how much bootleg literature and entertainment contributed towards the fall of the Iron Curtain ;).

That's really cool! The things you learn on the Board...

[Shryke]

It is inconvenient and here in continental Western Europe, leave alone farther East, many parents would be against it. Just use a solution that has been proven to work - provide pre-paid cards that can be purchased at retail. As iTunes' and Steam's successes have shown, it makes a lot of difference.

Agreed. The easier you make it to buy, the more people will do that.

You misunderstand me. I definitely buy things on Appstore, things that I know that I'd like.

But of the stuff that I have downloaded _for free_ due to promotions, etc. (and I am somewhat picky re: what I download), I wouldn't have bought 90% of it, I just gave it a try because it was free. I don't doubt that it is the same with illegal downloaders.

Not quite the same I'd say. Not every downloaded copy is a lost sale, but I'd say certainly a not-insignificant chunk of them are. People don't just download cause it's free. They find out about a thing and then go seek it out and spend energy to download it.

I short - yes. Not on bread alone does a human survive. With the proviso that if you can pay for it, you should. Blame it on my childhood - I was born in USSR and know first-hand how much bootleg literature and entertainment contributed towards the fall of the Iron Curtain ;).

Not to mention that the government was rather creative re: their approach to international copyright too. It is a little known, but fun fact that "Wizard of Oz" was initially published in Russian under the name of the guy who had translated it and not Baum's.

Not that I don't find it pretty despicable, but I don't for a second think that all the hundreds of thousands of kids that read it should have been better off without.

I'm not sure huge political change you expect piracy to lead to this time.

[Maia]

The easier you make it to buy, the more people will do that.

Indeed. And that's what publishers should be doing and what authors should be lobbying for, instead of crying about the unfairness of piracy and making up bogus statistics.

Not that publishers aren't making good money on e-books even so, as K.K. Rusch's link that I have provided above, shows.

People don't just download cause it's free. They find out about a thing and then go seek it out and spend energy to download it.

Yes, they do. That's the reason for all the free promotions on the iTunes Appstore - because when they make it free, downloads, and therefore exposure, grow hundredfold or more. That, for something that normally just costs a buck. Most of people who download the freebies also delete them within a couple of minutes, because they turn out to be not to their taste. But they download and try all the same, time after time!

I'm not sure huge political change you expect piracy to lead to this time.

Well, nobody can deny that a whole generation of software developers in the Eastern Europe sprung up due solely to piracy ;). And however some may cry that it is totally wrong and they should have remained computer illiterate, since most programs legally cost more than their parents earned in several months or even a year, I'd say that it is clearly a positive result. As well, lots of people learned English, who otherwise would have been unable to.

Also, if you look at the Third World countries, there are a lot of much more dangerous things that people could be doing in order to fill their spiritual needs, than pirating entertainment.

We are all better off if they pirate ASOIAF than if they turn to religious fundamentalism, ideological extremism or (production of) drugs. Additionally, it would help them learn English and hopefully make a better life for themselves and ideally help them contribute better to their country's economy too.

[Zoë Sumra]

Yes, they do. That's the reason for all the free promotions on the iTunes Appstore - because when they make it free, downloads, and therefore exposure, grow hundredfold or more. That, for something that normally just costs a buck. Most of people who download the freebies also delete them within a couple of minutes, because they turn out to be not to their taste. But they download and try all the same, time after time!

While I utterly disagree with your apparent conclusion that piracy free-for-all is A-OK, despite the effects it would have on innocent creators' income, most of those innocent creators not living in third world countries with third world living costs, this is entirely true. Several psychology experiments looking into the reasoning behind this phenomenon have concluded that humans (at least in a capitalist society in which the experimenters operated) are strongly drawn to "free", over and above the financial consequences: it's a psychological impulse to grab something for nothing.

(In case you're interested, one series of experiments focused on chocolate. The experimenters set up a stall selling nice chocolates for around 50 cents a piece and crap chocolate for around 10 cents a piece. Sales were roughly even. Then they changed the prices to 5 cents for the good chocolate and nothing for the crap chocolate. The crap chocolate flew off the table, while the good chocolate was barely touched. All other things being equal, humans would rather pay nothing for something crap than a tiny amount for something better, when those things are offered together. Solution, don't offer them together: have your Steam-book service or whatever charge even £0.01 for anything that isn't a Project Gutenberg out-of-copyright-therefore-free classic. Chocolate brands redacted to protect the Americans.)