Incompetence Inc.

My About page has been updated with thanks to Red Domino at Tri-Prism Communications.
Also on that page plans for I.i. world domination. Feedback welcome, as well as further ideas for expansion of this blog.
If only this were updated more often…

Copyright laws… What are they for? Who needs them? And why are giant corporations suing teenage girls because of them?

This issue is something I’ve been meaning to talk about since the start of this blog, and just as with the Censorship articles I’m here to take cheap shots at everyone and everything related to Copyright laws.

I must admit, the issue is complex.

While some parts of the issue are easy to argue against, there are parts, even foundations of the concept of intellectual property, which do in fact have some validity. To argue against them, it would be necessary to challenge the popular viewpoint. It will require finding an accurate definition of what “information”, or
indeed “intellect” refers to, and whether it can in fact be “owned”. It will also be necessary to question the notion of “entertainment”, and the value and meaning of it to society.

It is a philosophical issue. But, alas, as is usually the case, the word “is” is replaced by “should be” as large corporations, and inevitable human greed overpower us.

But enough of the waffle.

For now let’s look at the following hypothetical situation:

There is a race of highly-evolved, somewhat civilised beings known as “humans” on an average sized planet we shall call “Earth”. Now imagine one such being, named Al Gore, inventing a limitless global communications network, which would allow for the infinite sharing of information, knowledge, entertainment, pornography, etc. on a globally accessible source. Let’s call this the “Internets”.

Basically the issue here is about the progress of humanity. If not for ridiculous regulations and laws protecting the “rights” and “property” of the creator: of music, software etc., everyone could have legal access to just about every intellectual piece ever created.
It is already on the internet. Legalising it will just open up the huge tank of these resources to the world’s population.

Imagine a poorly funded public school, not having to pay for a Windows OS, giving children the opportunity to learn with technology, but spending money on things like facilities and teachers.

But how can Microsoft make money if nobody buys their products?
The point is getting people to use your product. If you have an enormous user-base, almost a monopoly on a giant market, the profits will flow quickly.
I, for example, have never bought a product from Google…

And will this decrease incentives, innovation, ingenuity and creativity or slow down advances in technology?
People will not get paid for creating their product, perhaps, they will not even get credit for inventing

Despite this popular notion, open source software has had great advances in the last few years, with many people working on projects which have perhaps overtaken the closed source alternatives in some regards.

While, looking at rights protected material: pop music has not taken leaps and bounds in originality in the last ten years.

In fact, pop producers now make a profit simply by producing what they choose to produce. People will automatically fleet to buy the latest album if it was simply played on the radio. No creativity involved.
The artists get paid, the producers get paid and the work is disproportionate to that level of pay.
Of course some people choose to pirate the single, or the album. But this only serves to increase the popularity of the artist, spread the word about their music, and this in turn would lead to somebody buying the CD.

Of course the RIAA or the MPAA will run scare campaigns to turn people away from pirating. Make up figures in their billions, about how much money was lost due to Copyright infringement, only serving to continue raising prices on their products, because they feel victimised.

Was any money actually lost because of piracy?
How many people had actually bought the product after downloading it? How many would otherwise have no access to this material were it not for piracy?
And could the quality of the content or price hike have anything to do with lost profits and less people willing to pay for their products?

The current penalties for pirating music or movies off the internet in many countries are so absurd that it now eclipses penalties for actually going to a store and stealing a record. A slap on the wrist for the latter, compared to thousands upon thousands of dollars for the other.
Harsh when you consider the preposterous claim of theft in the procedure. No one loses anything tangible, and all that is “stolen” is a duplicated strand of ones and zeros.
Other preposterous laws now include not being able to perform protected songs in public and regulations about where and with whom you can watch videos.

And while this is over-regulation, without any possibility of enforcement, is in fact absurd, will the elimination of IP laws altogether solve the problem?

Will the world just devolve into everyone taking credit for each others work?
It is not as if they do not try now. Fake works of art can be found all the time, yet it does not impede upon the industry.

Artists survive by selling tangible products of their work, not by selling rights to view the works. And with musicians, profts can be made by performing live concerts, from ticket sales, and selling merchandise.

Yet the heart of this issue, I believe, rests in the little guy – the “Lucy” of the… uhh, intellectual property stand. It is not the multinational pharmaceutical companies, nor the large budget film studios, for which Intellectual Property Laws were made.

What about the beginning artist, or musician who does not want his work to be stolen, discredited or used for commercial purposes:

Yet, is protecting the rights of someone’s piece of work justified?

An artist, regardless of the field, is someone who does what he does because he loves doing it. It is true that some choose to make a living being an artist, and yes, entertainment does have some value to our society. And regradless of how significant that value is, compared to other industries, when all is said and done, the purpose of entertainment, as well as education is, in fact, just that. To entertain and to educate. Not to make money, fuel unoriginality, limit the distribution of content and not to protect and regulate that content.

One’s intellectual works cannot be “owned”. And progess will be hindered until that is recognised.

powered by performancing firefox

Vote on Reddit 

Shout on Shoutwire