While there may be some truth in limited areas, the main area (especially when talking Indie) this is certainly not true.
Imagine the starting developer, who is just getting into writing indie games. They come up with a unique and novel idea and they implement as best they can in their "off-time", while still trying to hold down a full time job. It isn't for lack of ability or how well they do it, but their limits on time and capacity that may leave some of the polish out. It could even be their inexperience in the field (while being good programmers in their day job), and not knowing if the public would like their idea... so either way, they release their game.
It gains some success, they start getting a trickle of remuneration for their effort and then some big company sees their success and throws $100k at it. They turn out a better product NOT because they were innovative and smart, but because they have bucks to burn and can hire artists and musicians and whatever is required to make the game more polished.
This in turn makes the original programmers sales drop dramatically and they are effectively bullied out of the market by the bigger company.
This programmer, who has shown to be creative and innovative is going to become very disenchanted with the industry, knowing that anything they do which is successful could get swamped by those with more money just trying to build on his idea. Surely if these big companies were any good they would be out making their own original IP instead of copying others?
The end result? Good people with good ideas get bulldozed by greedy companies who are only interested in making a buck. Innovation goes out the window, and the sheer size and strength of these companies FORCES everybody to be like them or suffer. This is then a vicious cycle with other big companies seeing the success of companies drowning out the little guy, so they start doing it too.. why waste money on an idea that *might* work, when you can steal someone elses and put some extra polish on it and turn a quick buck!
It self perpetuates. Shame on you for not being able to think of the big picture!
I think the point Lucasfilm is making here is not to stop fans from being able to see the movie, or the fact that they would be seeing it for free, but the fact that allowing this would open the flood gates to allow anyone to show it at any time anywhere.
So they have to ask people to cease and desist, otherwise it would be an open slather. Considering they are in the process of re-releating it in 3D at the movies in the near future, its in their best interests to now have it open to the public.
Good on them for protecting their god given rights! Its a shame for those wanting to see it, but you should be blaming those who would take advantage of other peoples work, not those trying to protect it.
Thats all well and good, but surely you could have gone one step further, still given them full marks but made it known to them they plagiarised.
You don't have the paperwork, they are still caught out...
What you did actually set them up for failure, when you could have turned it around and given them an opportunity to do the learning...
After all.. isn't that what your job is? To teach people? Sitting back and watching them fail, especially with the perspective is that it will solve itself. In reality there was only ever going to be one resolution because you didn't "teach" them that the path they chose wouldn't get them anywhere... instead you "rewarded" them for plagiarising simply to reduce your own paperwork.
I suppose if you take what I said out of context and apply it in the wrong way to something it would be as bad as you said... Thankfully that isn't what I meant ;-)
You cannot copyright or trademark an idea, nor can you do so for something which is considered "generic", otherwise I would be out there in a second putting a copyright on "Boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back" and corner the market on 90% of every book and movie in existence.
What I am talking about is the use of trademarks or uniquely identifiable entities where the derivative work utilizes those entities for the purpose of enhancing the quality of their own work as a result. Note that I am also talking about works which are intended for profit as well.
So in essence, the person who put the time and effort into creating a recognizable entity, should be the only one who is allowed to profit from their creation.
So basic math has nothing to do with it. Math requires no creativity and is not subjective. It is considered "generic" and is completely irrelevant to everything I have talked about.
To illustrate this point. Lets look at the answer key to a book published on maths. If I were to show you the answer key and ask you to identify it you would be at a total loss. Its a bunch of numbers. It has no meaning...
If however I were to show you something which had a wizard named Gandalf and a hobbit named Froddo in it you would INSTANTLY say "Ah, thats Lord of the Rings".
Why should anyone but those who created LoTR be able to profit from their work?
Why? How does that make sense from a policy perspective? No one should have control over idea? Why should only one person be allowed to profit from it? That makes no sense to me.
I am not talking about having control over an idea, but having control over a recognizable entity. If they are using the specific title and uniquely identifiable components of the original work then they are the ones who have put the time and effort into creating it, publishing it, producing it, etc, etc and others should not be allowed to just "rip it off".
Put yourself in the position of such an original creator. You invest years and thousands of dollars to come up with a series of books. Someone comes along, quotes it as a sequal to your books and it sells millions of copies not because its a good book, but because its using YOUR original work to GIVE it the value. Wouldn't you be upset at that?
So? If it's not taking anything away from the original, what's the problem? You act as if it's a zero sum game, and any profits made by this unauthorized sequel (which the critics seem to agree is awful) come out of Salinger's pockets. But that's not the case at all.
Why is taking something away from the original the only indicator you are using? The issue is not simply whether the original author suffers or loses out, but whether their "property" is affected. The use of an original work as a means of promoting derrivative work means they are profiting from the work of others.
How is this any different to computer software or art work or music clips? If I create a new song which uses someone elses song as the background then I haven't done the work and shouldn't be allowed to use it. Just like Microsoft who clearly infringed on the patent of i4i, they were in the wrong for doing it but i4i don't have any product that could possibly compete with Word and so the injunction to have sales stopped was lifted. If someone writes a sequal to a book, regardless of whether its official or not, the very fact they are "claiming" it to be the sequal means the original author is now impaired from doing it himself. Now imagine that 20 people all put out their "sequal". Surely even you can admit that an authentic sequal would suffer as a result of having this mass of sequals? The volume itself would cause it to become lost. Sure some people would be smart enough to look for the authentic copy but why should the author have to FIGHT to be seen when its their OWN material they are writing about?
Really? What if the work stands alone. Plenty of sequels do not require you to be familiar with the original.
I dispute the validity of them standing alone. You may be able to read/watch it without having seen the original, but the "content" includes a lot of pre-existing groundwork which was done in the original. If something called "The Empire Strikes Back" came out, do you honestly think as many people would have seen it or even known about it unless it was titled "Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back" and leveraged off the success of the original?
I think you are being very narrow in your view of what is considered to stand alone. You could watch any movie and claim it stands alone, but when the original created the feeling/atmosphere of something and the derrivative "repeats" that then they are in fact NOT standing alone because any feeling or atmosphere generated from the derrivative MUST be the result of the original. To say it has absolutely no bearing would be a bit blinded (or to simply push a point rather than find an answer).
This is incorrect. It is not a breach of copyright to use something you don't own. It might be a breach of copyright to copy something for which you do not hold the right. That's a very different sentence and the differences are important.
Perhaps we are getting confused between copyright and trademark here. You cannot trademark an idea, but you can trademark a unique entity, logo or trademark. If you start using character names like Gandalf, Froddo and Golum in a story and they are a wizards and hobbits then you have indeed breeched trademark and are indeed illegally benefiting from the creation of others. It is BECAUSE its a hobbit named Froddo that people will read it, if not then call them a halfling named Fribbit and see how much money you make from it.
But that is essentially the point. If you believe something can stand alone, then MAKE it stand alone without using any references that are recognizable to previous original work. If you can't do that, if your work simply wont be as good without using those references, then clearly you have an intention to benefit from the work done by others and you shouldn't be allowed to profit from it.
I think it is easy for you to argue against this when you have nothing invested in it... I am almost certain that if you had time, effort and money tied up in some orginal work that you would be on a completely different side
Isn't the real issue here the obtaining of profit as a result of "using" the work from which it derives without permission?
Something which was highly successful being followed by a derivative work which uses that original material as a means of boosting its sales, is in fact using the merits of the original upon which to gain profit... something which is the exclusive rights of the original copyright owner.
So I fully understand the sequal to Catcher in the Rye being banned from sale, the very fact it uses the title or claims to be related in any way to the original means it is not standing on its own merits, but cashing in on the merits of the original.
This has always been the problem with derivative works. They are nothing without the originals and the use of specific terms, concepts or characters which were created in the original works, would not make sense to anyone who is not familiar with it in the first place. Under these conditions the derivative work actually ENHANCES the original work by requiring anyone who wishes to use it to purchase the originals in order to become familiar.
To me that is the primary difference. Is the original required? If it is (ie the answers make no sense without the questions) then I can't see why it would be disallowed as non-profit and would require copyright permission for profit publication, and if it is not then it would be a simple request to have the association to the original work removed because it is a breach of copyright to use something you don't own.
I dont think the analogy is pathetic but it does have one major flaw (which those who can use their brain will easily overcome).
Replicating tomatos is the first step in the process. Prior to the replication the tomato doesn't exist, and after the replication an infinate supply exists. Nothing is required as "input" for this process to function.
The movie/music industry however is different in that there is a prior step before replication can be done, and this prior step is both time consuming and costly. You cannot replicate if you don't have anything to replicate with, and so an infinate and FREE supply as a result of their hard work and effort would result in fewer and fewer being made to start with, which means there is nothing to replicate and the whole thing becomes a mute point.
The analogy does however show a "tendancy" towards one extreme which I think perfectly highlights the fallacy created by Music/Movie companies about their lost revenue. It correctly shows that an infinate and free supply does not automatically mean nobody would buy it.
Like i said... people with brains should be able to use the analogy correctly, only because they realise the purpose of an analogy is to "EXPLAIN" something to those who are struggling to understand the rudimentary concepts. Once those rudimentary concepts are understood, there is no point in sticking with the analogy.
So all those people who are picking the analogy apart instead of using it as "reference" need to learn the reason one is used to start with.
I have to wonder if people would make movies or write books unless they knew they could make a lot of money for doing it. I like the concept of this, and I do believe that infinate availability doesn't directly cause problems, but there would be a threshhold under which people will no longer produce things as a result.
Using the infinate tomato analogy as an example, if the time/effort/cost of producing the tomato was higher then people would stop making them, it is only because the original production costs are low does the infinate supply negligable.
This is where the movie/music business is caught. So much money is poured into videos and movie effects and paying the stars that the juggernaught MUST maintain a high yield of return on their products to make it worth them doing it in the first place.
So I think this is not something in isolation (nothing ever is), its part of a larger system and the more you increase the availability and reduce the price, the less will be produced due to the higher costs of doing so.
Personally I think what is missing here is the "sweet spot". The point at which people would rather obtain legitimate copies of things over free copies. When faced between free and a $50 DVD, when you only paid $15 to see it at the movies, who wouldn't choose the free version? The companies already made their money back with the movie sales, so why then are they screwing people over even more by charging a LARGER amount for a product that cost them next to nothing to replicate? If however they put a price point of say $5-10 on the item, less than what they did at the movies then you will find a lot more people would prefer to get a high quality copy through legitimate channels (which is fast and efficient for them), than go otu of their way to try and find a decent copy to download for free. It then becomes in their best interest to get the legal copy because it is more economical in the long run.
The upside of this is that a reduced cost OBVIOUSLY increases the quantity sold... this is called "turnover", and I think major companies have lost sight of this in a MAJOR way. By halving the cost of their goods, they could potentially DOUBLE their sales, which means they end up with just as much money as they previously had, but with a lot more happy people in the process.
You cannot replicate the cinema experience (as much as we try with projectors and home theatre), and so people will always gladly pay to go and see a movie or a concert, regardless of whether it is available for free (we could all just wait until its on the TV, but we dont, because we WANT to see it NOW). But the higher they put the prices up the more they are pushing people to make the decision to go for free.
In this context, infinate and free replication is a completely moot point because while it may be free, it isn't without cost in time and effort, and human beings put a lot more stock in reducing their effort than they do in saving a few bucks. Turn that into saving $50 and you have a totally different story... whats the difference? The "sweet spot", that point at which people's effort is reduced below their outlay.
Its the whole reason why people still go to video shops. Its easier to pay $5, grab it on the spot and watch a good quality version instantly than going through the motions of doing a search, finding a decent copy, waiting for it to download, etc, etc, etc
This captures exactly what the issue is and shows how much of a "non-issue" it really is.
What I find the most amusing about all of this is the shift in "content creators". More than anything else, the extortionate costs of movie making come down to the logistical costs of making the movie and the actorial costs in getting desired people to act in them. With the evolution in computer graphics the way it is going there will come a time when it will be economically viable to replace both the logistics and the actors of movies and produce the same quality of movies for a fraction of the cost.
Why on earth movie studios are not investing all of their profits into the creation of virtual worlds and amassing digital "assets" as well as programs which can replicate the real world is beyond me. They could produce multiple movies with the same base world engines and "re-use" the same technique over and over again, reducing costs each time. When a movie can be made for $1 million, then charging people say $1 to purchase it (in any format) becomes economically sound again.
I purchase a DVD (1 sale), upload it, and 5 people download it (-5 sales).
SAMPLE B:
I purchase a DVD (1 sale), invite 5 friends over and we all watch it (-5 sales).
While I am sure you could come up with scenarios where it is different, all of those scenarios would be specifically tailored to counter my claim, and I could come up with equally plausible scenrarios which support it. This doesn't change the fact that any method of providing material for viewing (ie making it available for download, inviting friends around to watch it) has the "potential" to reduce their sales.
Why condemn one and not all of them?
The point I am making is that its a fine line between what is considered acceptable and what is considered criminal, yet the end result is pretty much identical.
I think this gets to the heart of what the music and movie industry have been in error over for so long. They have continually accused those who freely take music and/or movies of costing them sales, when in reality there is no guarantee that a person would have indeed purchased the item had they not obtained it for free.
I would like to take that a step further however, something which highlights the utter nonsense of their claim.
READ ON
If the "crime" is the loss of revenue caused by finding an alternative means of consuming the product, then consider this:
I invite a group of friends over to watch a movie. Now that they have all watched the movie they are less likely to go out and purchase the movie now that they have seen it. Am I not costing the company a potential sale by doing this? How then is my crime any different to that of those who freely download it?
While there may be some level of variation with factors like wanting to own and re-use a copy, there have been studies which show those who freely download such things are often the ones who purchase more than those who don't, which flies in the face of their claims that sales are being missed.
Ultimately however I think the whole thing comes down to "appropriate pricing". The actual cost of production (1 DVD, a plastic sleeve and a paper cover), is incredibly small by comparison, barely costing more than a few dollars. Thus the majority of the price comes from the assumed "value" of the commodity and the level of supply/demand. Prices are made higher and higher on purpose to distinguish them from other products and to "make hay while the sun shines" so to speak. You can clearly see by the discounted shelves which items are not in demand and the prices drop very quickly as a result.
When faced with an expensive item, people will naturally seek out a cheaper alternative, effectively creating the very problem they are complaining about. If however the price was made more appropriate, brought down to a more acceptable level, I almost guarantee that your average person would rather pay $10 for a good quality GENUINE product, than go through all the hassle and time wasting of trying to obtain a free copy which may/may not be the same quality.
In effect they will increase the number of sales dramatically, where each of those people who would love to own a copy but thinks it is beyond their price range, would now purchase it because it is within reason. the increase in sales would mean more profit.
So even without an infinate good, I think the analogy is still a very good one and can be used to show an "extreme" view which as it turns out is still profitable for those who can find it.
As a last note... Think about this: Sand is free, you can reach down and grab a handful any time you like, heck grab a thousand handfuls! Yet people still gladly pay for sand in quantity, why? Quality aside, sometimes people would rather pay a modest amount than waste the time it would take to do it themselves. If they trippled the price of sand I guarantee more people would simply go grab their own.
The music/movie companies have nobody but themselves to blame. This situation is a natural result of them artificially inflating the value of their product. Any "normal" business would have realised they have not found the "sweet spot" of supply/demand and that dropping the price would increase turn over and thus increase profit. They still have "big company" mentality
So what you are saying ChasW is that the Journalist believes they are the only people who can give you the news and thus should be the only people who get paid for it.
If they write it, you pay for it, if someone else writes it then they don't have to pay for it because it isn't good enough until they have altered it, thus becoming news.
This sounds very much like what I said above conceptually. To them there is no double standard because they are the ONLY standard and thus are the only ones who believe are allowed to make valid statements. If they say its wrong, then its wrong to them and a double standard can never come into it because they can't see passed their own expanded heads.
What I find totally hilarious in all of this is that some "bloggers" out there (who btw do what they do for FREE) have a far larger following than journalists who get paid to do what they do. If the art of journalism is to "accurately" report the news, then surely the popularity of a journalist would be measured in how accurate they are. Funny enough, accuracy is only a small component, and its the "way" in which it is conveyed which is more important because we not only want to be informed but also entertained.
In this respect any man or dog can write, and any man or dog can become popular. While there may be great skill involved, it doesn't automatically equate to popularity and thus isn't seen as a valuable commodity. For them to effectively "de-value" another person (paid or otherwise) purely because of his status or a piece of paper on his wall or the title on his paycheck smacks of elitism.
Sometimes I think these journalists forget that no matter how good they are, they are always reporting THEIR PERSPECTIVE on something... its never the accurate and factual truth (easily seen in their dubious choice of adjectives), yet they somehow think themselves to be somehow 'above' the average man in his ability to inform and convey something to a wider audience.
No, its not a double standard at all, but a failure to understand the intention behind the major corporations perception of these two issues.
In all cases, in all ways, and at all times, whatever is to the benefit of the major corporation will be considered by DEFAULT to be "right", and anything which may detract or take from the corporation in any way will automatically by default be considered "wrong".
When you hold this perspective the double standard evaporates as in both cases the corporation believes it is right to ask money of others while at the same time saying its wrong for anyone BUT the corporation themselves to exploit others for gain.
Sadly however, this is an extension of normal human behaviour, whereby we tend to justify our own actions against others, yet condemn the very same actions by others taken against us....
Aren't human beings wonderful :)
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Enigmaticatious.
Strongly Disagree
I really do have to disagree with you Leigh.
While there may be some truth in limited areas, the main area (especially when talking Indie) this is certainly not true.
Imagine the starting developer, who is just getting into writing indie games. They come up with a unique and novel idea and they implement as best they can in their "off-time", while still trying to hold down a full time job. It isn't for lack of ability or how well they do it, but their limits on time and capacity that may leave some of the polish out. It could even be their inexperience in the field (while being good programmers in their day job), and not knowing if the public would like their idea... so either way, they release their game.
It gains some success, they start getting a trickle of remuneration for their effort and then some big company sees their success and throws $100k at it. They turn out a better product NOT because they were innovative and smart, but because they have bucks to burn and can hire artists and musicians and whatever is required to make the game more polished.
This in turn makes the original programmers sales drop dramatically and they are effectively bullied out of the market by the bigger company.
This programmer, who has shown to be creative and innovative is going to become very disenchanted with the industry, knowing that anything they do which is successful could get swamped by those with more money just trying to build on his idea. Surely if these big companies were any good they would be out making their own original IP instead of copying others?
The end result? Good people with good ideas get bulldozed by greedy companies who are only interested in making a buck. Innovation goes out the window, and the sheer size and strength of these companies FORCES everybody to be like them or suffer. This is then a vicious cycle with other big companies seeing the success of companies drowning out the little guy, so they start doing it too.. why waste money on an idea that *might* work, when you can steal someone elses and put some extra polish on it and turn a quick buck!
It self perpetuates. Shame on you for not being able to think of the big picture!
If we let the flood gates open...
I think the point Lucasfilm is making here is not to stop fans from being able to see the movie, or the fact that they would be seeing it for free, but the fact that allowing this would open the flood gates to allow anyone to show it at any time anywhere.
So they have to ask people to cease and desist, otherwise it would be an open slather. Considering they are in the process of re-releating it in 3D at the movies in the near future, its in their best interests to now have it open to the public.
Good on them for protecting their god given rights! Its a shame for those wanting to see it, but you should be blaming those who would take advantage of other peoples work, not those trying to protect it.
Re: Re: Answer Keys and Competition
Thats all well and good, but surely you could have gone one step further, still given them full marks but made it known to them they plagiarised.
You don't have the paperwork, they are still caught out...
What you did actually set them up for failure, when you could have turned it around and given them an opportunity to do the learning...
After all.. isn't that what your job is? To teach people? Sitting back and watching them fail, especially with the perspective is that it will solve itself. In reality there was only ever going to be one resolution because you didn't "teach" them that the path they chose wouldn't get them anywhere... instead you "rewarded" them for plagiarising simply to reduce your own paperwork.
Sheesh dude! Not cool!
Re: Re: On the coattails of others
Killer Tofu,
I suppose if you take what I said out of context and apply it in the wrong way to something it would be as bad as you said... Thankfully that isn't what I meant ;-)
You cannot copyright or trademark an idea, nor can you do so for something which is considered "generic", otherwise I would be out there in a second putting a copyright on "Boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back" and corner the market on 90% of every book and movie in existence.
What I am talking about is the use of trademarks or uniquely identifiable entities where the derivative work utilizes those entities for the purpose of enhancing the quality of their own work as a result. Note that I am also talking about works which are intended for profit as well.
So in essence, the person who put the time and effort into creating a recognizable entity, should be the only one who is allowed to profit from their creation.
So basic math has nothing to do with it. Math requires no creativity and is not subjective. It is considered "generic" and is completely irrelevant to everything I have talked about.
To illustrate this point. Lets look at the answer key to a book published on maths. If I were to show you the answer key and ask you to identify it you would be at a total loss. Its a bunch of numbers. It has no meaning...
If however I were to show you something which had a wizard named Gandalf and a hobbit named Froddo in it you would INSTANTLY say "Ah, thats Lord of the Rings".
Why should anyone but those who created LoTR be able to profit from their work?
Re: Re: On the coattails of others
Why? How does that make sense from a policy perspective? No one should have control over idea? Why should only one person be allowed to profit from it? That makes no sense to me.
I am not talking about having control over an idea, but having control over a recognizable entity. If they are using the specific title and uniquely identifiable components of the original work then they are the ones who have put the time and effort into creating it, publishing it, producing it, etc, etc and others should not be allowed to just "rip it off".
Put yourself in the position of such an original creator. You invest years and thousands of dollars to come up with a series of books. Someone comes along, quotes it as a sequal to your books and it sells millions of copies not because its a good book, but because its using YOUR original work to GIVE it the value. Wouldn't you be upset at that?
So? If it's not taking anything away from the original, what's the problem? You act as if it's a zero sum game, and any profits made by this unauthorized sequel (which the critics seem to agree is awful) come out of Salinger's pockets. But that's not the case at all.
Why is taking something away from the original the only indicator you are using? The issue is not simply whether the original author suffers or loses out, but whether their "property" is affected. The use of an original work as a means of promoting derrivative work means they are profiting from the work of others.
How is this any different to computer software or art work or music clips? If I create a new song which uses someone elses song as the background then I haven't done the work and shouldn't be allowed to use it. Just like Microsoft who clearly infringed on the patent of i4i, they were in the wrong for doing it but i4i don't have any product that could possibly compete with Word and so the injunction to have sales stopped was lifted. If someone writes a sequal to a book, regardless of whether its official or not, the very fact they are "claiming" it to be the sequal means the original author is now impaired from doing it himself. Now imagine that 20 people all put out their "sequal". Surely even you can admit that an authentic sequal would suffer as a result of having this mass of sequals? The volume itself would cause it to become lost. Sure some people would be smart enough to look for the authentic copy but why should the author have to FIGHT to be seen when its their OWN material they are writing about?
Really? What if the work stands alone. Plenty of sequels do not require you to be familiar with the original.
I dispute the validity of them standing alone. You may be able to read/watch it without having seen the original, but the "content" includes a lot of pre-existing groundwork which was done in the original. If something called "The Empire Strikes Back" came out, do you honestly think as many people would have seen it or even known about it unless it was titled "Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back" and leveraged off the success of the original?
I think you are being very narrow in your view of what is considered to stand alone. You could watch any movie and claim it stands alone, but when the original created the feeling/atmosphere of something and the derrivative "repeats" that then they are in fact NOT standing alone because any feeling or atmosphere generated from the derrivative MUST be the result of the original. To say it has absolutely no bearing would be a bit blinded (or to simply push a point rather than find an answer).
This is incorrect. It is not a breach of copyright to use something you don't own. It might be a breach of copyright to copy something for which you do not hold the right. That's a very different sentence and the differences are important.
Perhaps we are getting confused between copyright and trademark here. You cannot trademark an idea, but you can trademark a unique entity, logo or trademark. If you start using character names like Gandalf, Froddo and Golum in a story and they are a wizards and hobbits then you have indeed breeched trademark and are indeed illegally benefiting from the creation of others. It is BECAUSE its a hobbit named Froddo that people will read it, if not then call them a halfling named Fribbit and see how much money you make from it.
But that is essentially the point. If you believe something can stand alone, then MAKE it stand alone without using any references that are recognizable to previous original work. If you can't do that, if your work simply wont be as good without using those references, then clearly you have an intention to benefit from the work done by others and you shouldn't be allowed to profit from it.
I think it is easy for you to argue against this when you have nothing invested in it... I am almost certain that if you had time, effort and money tied up in some orginal work that you would be on a completely different side
On the coattails of others
Isn't the real issue here the obtaining of profit as a result of "using" the work from which it derives without permission?
Something which was highly successful being followed by a derivative work which uses that original material as a means of boosting its sales, is in fact using the merits of the original upon which to gain profit... something which is the exclusive rights of the original copyright owner.
So I fully understand the sequal to Catcher in the Rye being banned from sale, the very fact it uses the title or claims to be related in any way to the original means it is not standing on its own merits, but cashing in on the merits of the original.
This has always been the problem with derivative works. They are nothing without the originals and the use of specific terms, concepts or characters which were created in the original works, would not make sense to anyone who is not familiar with it in the first place. Under these conditions the derivative work actually ENHANCES the original work by requiring anyone who wishes to use it to purchase the originals in order to become familiar.
To me that is the primary difference. Is the original required? If it is (ie the answers make no sense without the questions) then I can't see why it would be disallowed as non-profit and would require copyright permission for profit publication, and if it is not then it would be a simple request to have the association to the original work removed because it is a breach of copyright to use something you don't own.
Re: Re: Alright.... thats enough
Mike,
I dont think the analogy is pathetic but it does have one major flaw (which those who can use their brain will easily overcome).
Replicating tomatos is the first step in the process. Prior to the replication the tomato doesn't exist, and after the replication an infinate supply exists. Nothing is required as "input" for this process to function.
The movie/music industry however is different in that there is a prior step before replication can be done, and this prior step is both time consuming and costly. You cannot replicate if you don't have anything to replicate with, and so an infinate and FREE supply as a result of their hard work and effort would result in fewer and fewer being made to start with, which means there is nothing to replicate and the whole thing becomes a mute point.
The analogy does however show a "tendancy" towards one extreme which I think perfectly highlights the fallacy created by Music/Movie companies about their lost revenue. It correctly shows that an infinate and free supply does not automatically mean nobody would buy it.
Like i said... people with brains should be able to use the analogy correctly, only because they realise the purpose of an analogy is to "EXPLAIN" something to those who are struggling to understand the rudimentary concepts. Once those rudimentary concepts are understood, there is no point in sticking with the analogy.
So all those people who are picking the analogy apart instead of using it as "reference" need to learn the reason one is used to start with.
Good job!
Re: Re: So who always wants to eat the same tomato?
Sean,
But is this the case?
I have to wonder if people would make movies or write books unless they knew they could make a lot of money for doing it. I like the concept of this, and I do believe that infinate availability doesn't directly cause problems, but there would be a threshhold under which people will no longer produce things as a result.
Using the infinate tomato analogy as an example, if the time/effort/cost of producing the tomato was higher then people would stop making them, it is only because the original production costs are low does the infinate supply negligable.
This is where the movie/music business is caught. So much money is poured into videos and movie effects and paying the stars that the juggernaught MUST maintain a high yield of return on their products to make it worth them doing it in the first place.
So I think this is not something in isolation (nothing ever is), its part of a larger system and the more you increase the availability and reduce the price, the less will be produced due to the higher costs of doing so.
Personally I think what is missing here is the "sweet spot". The point at which people would rather obtain legitimate copies of things over free copies. When faced between free and a $50 DVD, when you only paid $15 to see it at the movies, who wouldn't choose the free version? The companies already made their money back with the movie sales, so why then are they screwing people over even more by charging a LARGER amount for a product that cost them next to nothing to replicate? If however they put a price point of say $5-10 on the item, less than what they did at the movies then you will find a lot more people would prefer to get a high quality copy through legitimate channels (which is fast and efficient for them), than go otu of their way to try and find a decent copy to download for free. It then becomes in their best interest to get the legal copy because it is more economical in the long run.
The upside of this is that a reduced cost OBVIOUSLY increases the quantity sold... this is called "turnover", and I think major companies have lost sight of this in a MAJOR way. By halving the cost of their goods, they could potentially DOUBLE their sales, which means they end up with just as much money as they previously had, but with a lot more happy people in the process.
You cannot replicate the cinema experience (as much as we try with projectors and home theatre), and so people will always gladly pay to go and see a movie or a concert, regardless of whether it is available for free (we could all just wait until its on the TV, but we dont, because we WANT to see it NOW). But the higher they put the prices up the more they are pushing people to make the decision to go for free.
In this context, infinate and free replication is a completely moot point because while it may be free, it isn't without cost in time and effort, and human beings put a lot more stock in reducing their effort than they do in saving a few bucks. Turn that into saving $50 and you have a totally different story... whats the difference? The "sweet spot", that point at which people's effort is reduced below their outlay.
Its the whole reason why people still go to video shops. Its easier to pay $5, grab it on the spot and watch a good quality version instantly than going through the motions of doing a search, finding a decent copy, waiting for it to download, etc, etc, etc
BRAVO!!
I couldn't have put it better myself!
This captures exactly what the issue is and shows how much of a "non-issue" it really is.
What I find the most amusing about all of this is the shift in "content creators". More than anything else, the extortionate costs of movie making come down to the logistical costs of making the movie and the actorial costs in getting desired people to act in them. With the evolution in computer graphics the way it is going there will come a time when it will be economically viable to replace both the logistics and the actors of movies and produce the same quality of movies for a fraction of the cost.
Why on earth movie studios are not investing all of their profits into the creation of virtual worlds and amassing digital "assets" as well as programs which can replicate the real world is beyond me. They could produce multiple movies with the same base world engines and "re-use" the same technique over and over again, reducing costs each time. When a movie can be made for $1 million, then charging people say $1 to purchase it (in any format) becomes economically sound again.
Re: Anonymous Coward
Perhaps you can explain the difference then:
SAMPLE A:
I purchase a DVD (1 sale), upload it, and 5 people download it (-5 sales).
SAMPLE B:
I purchase a DVD (1 sale), invite 5 friends over and we all watch it (-5 sales).
While I am sure you could come up with scenarios where it is different, all of those scenarios would be specifically tailored to counter my claim, and I could come up with equally plausible scenrarios which support it. This doesn't change the fact that any method of providing material for viewing (ie making it available for download, inviting friends around to watch it) has the "potential" to reduce their sales.
Why condemn one and not all of them?
The point I am making is that its a fine line between what is considered acceptable and what is considered criminal, yet the end result is pretty much identical.
How can you "steal" an infinate good?
I think this gets to the heart of what the music and movie industry have been in error over for so long. They have continually accused those who freely take music and/or movies of costing them sales, when in reality there is no guarantee that a person would have indeed purchased the item had they not obtained it for free.
I would like to take that a step further however, something which highlights the utter nonsense of their claim.
READ ON
If the "crime" is the loss of revenue caused by finding an alternative means of consuming the product, then consider this:
I invite a group of friends over to watch a movie. Now that they have all watched the movie they are less likely to go out and purchase the movie now that they have seen it. Am I not costing the company a potential sale by doing this? How then is my crime any different to that of those who freely download it?
While there may be some level of variation with factors like wanting to own and re-use a copy, there have been studies which show those who freely download such things are often the ones who purchase more than those who don't, which flies in the face of their claims that sales are being missed.
Ultimately however I think the whole thing comes down to "appropriate pricing". The actual cost of production (1 DVD, a plastic sleeve and a paper cover), is incredibly small by comparison, barely costing more than a few dollars. Thus the majority of the price comes from the assumed "value" of the commodity and the level of supply/demand. Prices are made higher and higher on purpose to distinguish them from other products and to "make hay while the sun shines" so to speak. You can clearly see by the discounted shelves which items are not in demand and the prices drop very quickly as a result.
When faced with an expensive item, people will naturally seek out a cheaper alternative, effectively creating the very problem they are complaining about. If however the price was made more appropriate, brought down to a more acceptable level, I almost guarantee that your average person would rather pay $10 for a good quality GENUINE product, than go through all the hassle and time wasting of trying to obtain a free copy which may/may not be the same quality.
In effect they will increase the number of sales dramatically, where each of those people who would love to own a copy but thinks it is beyond their price range, would now purchase it because it is within reason. the increase in sales would mean more profit.
So even without an infinate good, I think the analogy is still a very good one and can be used to show an "extreme" view which as it turns out is still profitable for those who can find it.
As a last note... Think about this: Sand is free, you can reach down and grab a handful any time you like, heck grab a thousand handfuls! Yet people still gladly pay for sand in quantity, why? Quality aside, sometimes people would rather pay a modest amount than waste the time it would take to do it themselves. If they trippled the price of sand I guarantee more people would simply go grab their own.
The music/movie companies have nobody but themselves to blame. This situation is a natural result of them artificially inflating the value of their product. Any "normal" business would have realised they have not found the "sweet spot" of supply/demand and that dropping the price would increase turn over and thus increase profit. They still have "big company" mentality
Re: Typical Journalists
So what you are saying ChasW is that the Journalist believes they are the only people who can give you the news and thus should be the only people who get paid for it.
If they write it, you pay for it, if someone else writes it then they don't have to pay for it because it isn't good enough until they have altered it, thus becoming news.
This sounds very much like what I said above conceptually. To them there is no double standard because they are the ONLY standard and thus are the only ones who believe are allowed to make valid statements. If they say its wrong, then its wrong to them and a double standard can never come into it because they can't see passed their own expanded heads.
What I find totally hilarious in all of this is that some "bloggers" out there (who btw do what they do for FREE) have a far larger following than journalists who get paid to do what they do. If the art of journalism is to "accurately" report the news, then surely the popularity of a journalist would be measured in how accurate they are. Funny enough, accuracy is only a small component, and its the "way" in which it is conveyed which is more important because we not only want to be informed but also entertained.
In this respect any man or dog can write, and any man or dog can become popular. While there may be great skill involved, it doesn't automatically equate to popularity and thus isn't seen as a valuable commodity. For them to effectively "de-value" another person (paid or otherwise) purely because of his status or a piece of paper on his wall or the title on his paycheck smacks of elitism.
Sometimes I think these journalists forget that no matter how good they are, they are always reporting THEIR PERSPECTIVE on something... its never the accurate and factual truth (easily seen in their dubious choice of adjectives), yet they somehow think themselves to be somehow 'above' the average man in his ability to inform and convey something to a wider audience.
I just point and laugh...
No double standards at all
No, its not a double standard at all, but a failure to understand the intention behind the major corporations perception of these two issues.
In all cases, in all ways, and at all times, whatever is to the benefit of the major corporation will be considered by DEFAULT to be "right", and anything which may detract or take from the corporation in any way will automatically by default be considered "wrong".
When you hold this perspective the double standard evaporates as in both cases the corporation believes it is right to ask money of others while at the same time saying its wrong for anyone BUT the corporation themselves to exploit others for gain.
Sadly however, this is an extension of normal human behaviour, whereby we tend to justify our own actions against others, yet condemn the very same actions by others taken against us....
Aren't human beings wonderful :)