http://questioncopyright.org/compensation
(for the record though; I'm prepared to compromise and allow for a short copyright monopoly that applies only to 'commercial' publication -- where commercial is defined as both large scale and in exchange for money)



This would be an example of Apple "making money on someone else's hard work" without respecting their terms as expressed by the GPL licence. Didn't you just argue that's "not on" ?

there is no need for a "copyright monopoly", as it should be a simple agreement between the original creator and the one using it to make a financial gain (whether large scale or not)



The app was free, now no one can use it

explain to me the benefits for the end users again?

Einstein put a lot of work in to the theory of relativity. Also, I think it was him who did much of the theoretical groundwork for the development of the laser, but without figuring out the final step of how to manufacture one. Two others figured out the final step at much the same time, and fought over the patent rights, while paying nothing for all the previous work. In some sense, I think everyone does deserve to be paid for any work they do that someone else benefits from, even if they didn't have a contract for it, but I'd stop short of saying they have a right to extract payment by force. If you don't stop short of this, then how do you decide what kinds of work entitle people to extract payment by force from those who benefit?

AFAIK, Apple would be permitted to distribute VLC without paying for it if they wanted to, if they didn't DRM encode it, whereas they wouldn't be permitted to distribute MS Office without paying for it, regardless of whether they DRM encoded it or not, so I'm hard pressed to see how the GPL is just as restrictive.

Whether the copyright holder has an exclusive right to issue copies, or an exclusive right to issue licenses, I think it would still be a monopoly.

AFAIK, the intention is that by disallowing people to take GPL works and encode them with DRM, or offer them without source code, it is disallowing people from using GPL works as a means to gain power/control over others. But in any case, you never said copyright was supposed to be about benefits for end users, you said it was about payment, and in the case of the GPL, the authors want to be paid in terms of source code and DRM-free access.

I can see a need for commercial copyright of just 5 years, but as copyright covers an essentially cultural work, it should not apply to personal copying for friends and family.
That said, there are a few android apps and games I'd like to sell for a profit, rather than remain in a minimum wage job.
Sure, there are some things I'll make available for free because I think they're either too important to charge for them, or too simple to ask to be paid for usage.

I've copied games, movies and music for 30 years now, and I only buy cultural works such as games, movies and music when I think it's worthwhile.
Essentially there are somethings which I try for a while, then decide whether I want them still in storage, afterwards I'll decide if I'll buy a copy or delete.

I guess what I'm saying is, if it's a choice between no copyright at all with a minimum wage job,
and a 5 year term with commercial copyright only and artists, authors, programmers and actors with good jobs, then I support limited commercial copyright.

Ultimately I'd be okay with 5 years commercial copyright. I'd actually prefer a bit more than that. Either way, I'd like to see that implemented in steps rather than attempting to do it all at once. I think a limited copyright system can promote the public good, and I am in favour of this. I think collecting tax can promote the public good too, and I'm also in favour of this. I just can't see how either could be construed as a moral right. Stepping out of this society for a moment, if I were to be in another society or on a deserted island [EDIT: erm, I mean in a group of people e.g. shipwrecked on an otherwise deserted island], and someone tried to take my stuff, I would see a justification for the application of force. If in another society or on a deserted island I made some information publicly available and people proceeded to copy it, I just can't see a moral justification for the application of force. Public servants are probably generally in favour of the collection of tax. Authors are probably generally in favour of copyright. I'm in favour of some of both, I think they can both benefit society as a whole. I just don't see them as moral requirements that societies are obliged to have even if people generally didn't want them.

Goodness me! Apparently I need to keep up with the party discussion a bit more.
I didn't realise we'd turned into the Privateer Party. Edison Carter is absolutely right.
Why do we have people arguing *for* non-commercial copyright in the party itself?

I accept that limited commercial copyrights may be necessary/a compromise we have to make,
and I realise that some further concessions will likely need to be made to other parties when
it gets to the legislative stage, but we should have a strong unified position at least within the
party.

The argument that the GPL is just as restrictive as other (non-free) licenses is ridiculous. As
has been mentioned, the reason why the Apple Store can't distribute VLC is because of the
*restrictive* Apple Store license that doesn't allow free software to be distributed. If I set up
a stand to give everyone free lemonade, and a store down the road sets up a shop selling
hamburgers on the condition that they not be eaten together with the free lemonade, would
you say my lemonade stand discriminates against the hamburger buyers? I have the feeling my
analogy is getting away from me...

In summary: Educate yourself on the issues and options surrounding copyright and patents, etc.
Understand the party's goals. Decide whether you want to support the party, or stop hanging
around and arguing for the lobbyists. Reaching 500 members is not an accomplishment if they're
from the RIAA.

PS: I may have Godwin'd this discussion with the RIAA comparison. My bad. I guess I'm just
unpleasantly surprised by some of the comments here.

Speaking for myself, I don't think it matters if a few individuals have views that are outside the party norm, so long as everyone's willing to tow the agreed party line publicly. And responding to differing views is good practice, because it's something that's going to have to happen a lot when we get closer to the elections.

I've been veering towards a 10 yr, commercial-only term... mainly (I think) because it's UK PP policy - and it's easy to explain to people. Complete abolition is a bit of a stretch for (normal) people to get their heads around. "10 years" is a palatable sound-bite.

I think an important number to pin down though, is how much money artists (and only artists) were making out of "selling copies" of recordings pre-internet. According to a recent Cory Doctorow article, only 3% of artists signed to major labels made more than $600 a year - pre-napster.

If this is the case, then all arguments about "artists making a living" are moot. Artists never made a living doing this stuff anyway.

--

Another perspective comes from Nick Cave:

Well, you know, there’re certain things that I don’t do and that I haven’t done in the past… ads being one of them. But I think you should be free to do what you want to do. If you want to do ads, I don’t see there’s anything wrong with someone going out and trying to make some money. I don’t have any problem with it at all and I actually don’t have any problem with certain songs of mine being used in ads if that came up. I’d have objections to certain songs being used because I know that these particular songs mean something to people on a different level of just being songs. I mean, people get married or they bury their friend to fucking “Into My Arms” or “The Ship Song” or something like that, and you don’t necessarily want to be watching the TV and a Toyota ad and “The Ship Song” comes on…because it’s sort of demeaning and has greater repercussions. But if people wanted to use other stuff, I don’t think I’d have that much objection to it.

He does have a point I think... but maybe in an environment of 100% abundance, nothing can be sacred. I'm betting plenty of people have gotten married to One Love (by U2) so royally butchered by those "do the right thing" guys from Bank Of America.

And maybe in 10 years time, no one will be watching TV anyway... maybe the problem here isn't about mass-consumption-top-down-broadcasting having the ability to debase the value of the common-wealth, than the fact mass-consumption-top-down-broadcasting exists at all.

Yeah--since the general public is so accustomed to massive copyright, I think we need to be careful to avoid perceptions of 'extremism'.

Yeah, it could be good to gather together some stuff like this to alleviate concerns about the world falling apart with less copyright.

I'm not convinced about this 'sacred' thing. Who defines what is 'sacred'? The suggestion seems to be that it is the right(?)/duty(?) of authors to decide what is 'sacred' for the benefit of the public. Then this right/duty presumably gets passed down (or sold)? For how long? For the duration of copyright? Does 'sacredness' extend precisely for the duration of copyright? Is whoever buys the copyright ideally suited to determine 'sacredness'? What can legitimately defile 'sacredness'? Where do you draw the line between an advertisement and the natural human tendency to push an agenda? Or what agendas defile 'sacredness' and/or how evident must they be? Objectionable agendas, by whose standards? There was a suggestion that Lou Reed initially disallowed Susan Boyle to sing Perfect Day because "he isn't a Boyle fan". Would this be justifiable on the basis of 'sacredness'? If not, how do we make the distinction?

Perhaps there is some point in singers being able to disallow (commercial) use of recordings of their own voice, but other than that (e.g. for instrumental versions or covers), I think it would be better if copyright could provide incentive by non-discriminatory payment rather than a right to arbitrary control, because arbitrary control allows for discrimination. (Not sure how to actually achieve this though.)

Yea, sacredness is something far more likely to cause harm than good - and a moot point in any case, because the 21stC version of "Where there's a hit, there's a writ" is "Where there's a hit, there's an linked constellation of parody videos and bad fan-homages"

(I've even made a bad fan-homages myself : http://vimeo.com/18296126 )

And not only is this constellation of parody and fanfic NOT something "bad, to be stamped out", it's actually a crucial part of the marketing.

But... the sacred aspect will bite the odd person on the arse - where funeral music becomes an advert for something crap. There's a lot of evil out there, and evil needs advertising because no-one will word-of-mouth it.

Probably just me - I probably just hate corporate-culture. I'm gen-x. We do. We find corporate culture to be insincere and manipulative... so when I hear that John Densmore told Cadillac to take their 15 million and shove it, or Hunters and Collectors telling Tina Turner to piss off, or Nick Cave rejecting all the stuff he's always rejected I feel a warm glow of solidarity - and when anyone sells out, I feel betrayed.

I think maybe attribution is the thing that needs to be sacred - I seem to recall seeing that in a PP manifesto somewhere.