The Political Thread

[The Legendary Shark]

No, that's not what I'm saying.

Copying is not theft because ideas and knowledge are not property. Imagine that I own a farm and discover oil on it. I decide to keep this information to myself and plan to buy up my neighbours' properties before they find out.

A burglar breaks into my house and steals my laptop, on which are details of the oilfield. The thief then spreads the word and my neighbours find out about the oil. Despite the fact that the thief committed a crime against me and is prosecuted, the information is out there.

If one believes that ideas, knowledge or information can be owned and stolen, then one must believe that my neighbours have no right to it and therefore have to forget it or be guilty of receiving stolen property, and that they have no right to charge me ten times what I was offering to buy their land, or to sell to someone else, or to pump the oil themselves.

I'm not trying to convince you that I'm right or to "beat you into submission." I'm trying to explain how I view this subject - the high word count is simply a fault in my style because I can't seem to explain things properly in a condensed fashion.

[Dandontdare]

Where is the incentive to create work that will immediately be taken by someone else?

Let's say a basement inventor spends decades working on their SuperMaguffin2000,a machine that everyone will want but nobody has ever thought of - he's slaved and studied and invested huge amounts of time and money into creating a prototype - but once he unveils it, a multinational with deep pockets and a chain of manufacturing plants and a distribution network will instantly start making it and selling it - inventor gets nothing for their hard work and genius. Under your system, he would be fine selling the physical prototype he's knocked up, but won't get a penny of the gazillions that it makes on the market.

[The Legendary Shark]

That kind of happened to Nikola Tesla under the current system - which doesn't make it right, of course.

In your example, this is indeed a risk - but to both parties. Would you support such a Mega Corp's actions in this case? The negative publicity could easily ruin the big company, especially given the power of the internet to spread and amplify public opinion. It would be in the Mega Corp's best interests to reach an equitable deal with the inventor.

Under the current system, it's easier for the Mega Corp to rush through a patent and tie up the inventor for years, and easily ruin him or her, through protracted legal battles.

[IndigoPrime]

Sorry, Shark, but your response is akin to those Greens in the GE campaign – basically that good people will punish the large corporations for being mean. Ultimately, that never happens. Our current copyright system is deeply flawed in fundamental ways. Moreover, the UK also doesn't have a sensible fair-use system. It is absurd that you cannot format-shift, for example, thereby creating a system where you're supposed to buy the same content multiple times, on increasingly ephemeral services.

BUT as someone immersed in the creative industries, I like having some protections for what I do, and the publications I work for. Without it, many of those things would be gone. In short, the system needs reform, not eradication.

[Dandontdare]

In your example, this is indeed a risk - but to both parties. Would you support such a Mega Corp's actions in this case? The negative publicity could easily ruin the big company, especially given the power of the internet to spread and amplify public opinion. It would be in the Mega Corp's best interests to reach an equitable deal with the inventor.

Absolute tosh - multinational companies do far worse, far more often and don't give a fuck what the anyone says - and why? BECAUSE THEY CAN AND BECAUSE IT'S PROFITABLE. If everyone is going to want a SuperMaguffin2000, and economies of scale means that Global Bastard Inc. can sell it first, at a fraction of the cost that Honest Local Co. can, then people will buy it from them whatever the internet says. They're not going to be the only one on their street without a SM2K because they think it's a shame that Professor Genius isn't getting paid enough. They're not going to wait a year until a more equitable company puts it into production whilst generously donating profits that they don't have to to the Prof.  A system reliant on a shaming campaign going viral is ridiculous.

Once again your argument falls to pieces on the realities of human nature.

[Funt Solo]

Copying is not theft...

Yes it is.

[The Legendary Shark]

It won't just be good people, it'll also be investors and shareholders. Those kinds of hard-nosed people will stop investing or dump their shares if they think the Mega Corp is going to take a financial hit. Then suppliers and affiliates, not to mention employees, will start backing out as well.

Doing away with IP will actually open up opportunities for creatives because there will be far more projects that can be worked on.

[Funt Solo]

The SuperMaguffin2000:



Kopyleft 2019

[IndigoPrime]

Doing away with IP will actually open up opportunities for creatives because there will be far more projects that can be worked on.

Doing away with IP will eradicate opportunities because the risk will be colossal, and the rewards will be almost entirely removed. For people who just faff about with things as hobbies – again, I refer to all those Greens I argued with – this is fine. For people who have a carerer in creative industries, you're talking about obliterating their livelihoods, because you think IP should be a free-for-all.

Again, I think the system needs work, fair-use needs strengthening, and current copyright laws should be questioned, but lobbing the entire lot into the sea won't result in some kind of utopia for creatives.

[The Legendary Shark]

Absolute tosh - multinational companies do far worse, far more often and don't give a fuck what the anyone says - and why? BECAUSE THEY CAN AND BECAUSE IT'S PROFITABLE.

They do far worse, far more often, because they are protected by governments.

[Dandontdare]

It won't just be good people, it'll also be investors and shareholders. Those kinds of hard-nosed people will stop investing or dump their shares if they think the Mega Corp is going to take a financial hit. Then suppliers and affiliates, not to mention employees, will start backing out as well.

Doing away with IP will actually open up opportunities for creatives because there will be far more projects that can be worked on.

But that's the point - bad publicity doesn't mean a financial hit - Look at the Nestle Babymilk Action campaign - the longest running ethical consumer boycott going (I really miss my Rowntrees fruit pastilles!), but Nestle are still one of the hugest and most profitable companies in the world, people still buy Nescafe, and babies are still dying by being force-marketed inappropriate baby formula. Or those drugs companies that suddenly increase the price 4000% - they get bad publicity and everyone agrees it's awful - but they don't care because they make lots of money.

You're talking about those 1 in a 10000 cases where public anger does directly affects sales - out of all the awful, evil things that multinational corporations do on a daily basis, can you name me any examples of that ever working?

We shop in Primark even though we know that you can't sell a shirt for £3 without somebody being exploited, we tut and moan about all the evil things that companies do, but ooh look, shiny things that are cheap!

Companies know this and 99.9% of the time, they'll just make some concerned PR noises, wait till the fuss dis down and keep raking in the cash.

I'll put my faith in a statist system of laws and regulations, over the self-sacrificing goodwill of either consumers or corporations any day of the week. Sadly, greed and self interest always beat altruism, we need laws to enforce basic principles and stop the worst excesses of exploitation.

Absolute tosh - multinational companies do far worse, far more often and don't give a fuck what the anyone says - and why? BECAUSE THEY CAN AND BECAUSE IT'S PROFITABLE.

They do far worse, far more often, because they are protected by governments.

Now the problems arise when the corps have too big an input into framing those laws, but that's another argument. IP protection is needed.

[The Legendary Shark]

...some kind of utopia for creatives.

There's that tired old straw man again. There is no such thing as Utopia, just as there is no such thing as a perfect system. Industries will adapt. This idea that all companies are evil rapists is pure paranoia.

[Dandontdare]

Absolute tosh - multinational companies do far worse, far more often and don't give a fuck what the anyone says - and why? BECAUSE THEY CAN AND BECAUSE IT'S PROFITABLE.

They do far worse, far more often, because they are protected by governments.

And you're doing the "I can't win this argument so I'll shift the goalposts" thing again - we're talking about IP rights.

[IndigoPrime]

Industries will adapt. This idea that all companies are evil rapists is pure paranoia.

One, probably don't use the R word in this context. Completely inappropriate. Two, adapt in what sense? You are literally saying that, say, Rebellion would have to hope people would reward it with loyalty, when any other company could do whatever the hell it likes with its IP. And that creatives would have to risk that. Then expand this out to everyone doing anything creative that would currently fall under existing legal protections.

This isn't about adaptation. This is about creating a place in which creatives have zero protection, and will therefore be far less likely to put in the effort, because the risk is far too high. (Or, as I explained to the Greens, you just end up entrenching the fortunes of the super-wealthy, because they can afford to take said risks, and will have the marketing clout to shout loudest.)

[The Legendary Shark]

Absolute tosh - multinational companies do far worse, far more often and don't give a fuck what the anyone says - and why? BECAUSE THEY CAN AND BECAUSE IT'S PROFITABLE.

They do far worse, far more often, because they are protected by governments.

And you're doing the "I can't win this argument so I'll shift the goalposts" thing again - we're talking about IP rights.

Yes, we are. As I said, something in the mind is not property, only government legislation makes it so. If you keep an idea in your mind and don't tell anyone about it, that's your right. Once you tell somebody, or sell your idea, it cannot be exclusively yours any more.

If someone copies your story, or expands upon it, then what has been stolen from you? Nothing. You still have the idea, it's not like it's been sucked out of your head. One might argue, then, that it's your extra income that's been stolen - but that makes no sense either because it implies that other people's money belongs to you, that you have a right to it.

It's like saying one shop is stealing customers from another, as if customers can be owned.