Copyrights

Do they still matter? Are they outdated?

I mean - I'll be honest, I've had no shortage of pirated software on my machine over the years.

admin: Sorry, I actually meant to reply to this ages ago... I just forgot.

I feel pretty strongly about this one. I think Copyrights absolutely still matter, they're still relevant and they should most definitely still be enforced.

(I should also declare my personal bias in this issue, since the bulk of my personal revenue comes from intellectual property royalties)

I think the biggest problem with ineffectual copyright protection is that a significant minority of people are not encouraged to contribute creatively to society in the form of progressing whatever area they are gifted in - be it arts, technology etc.
I won't go so far as to say that society won't progress at all, there are still plenty of altruistic people out there willing and able to bring new ideas to the table without the need for financial remuneration, but I definitely think that removing one of the biggest incentives from the equation, (maybe two if you count fame as an incentive) will see development in certain areas slow.

nzlockie: I think the problem with this is that people in this generation expect to not pay for IP. Just a few years ago I remember purchasing a song cost 99 cents, now it costs something like 10 cents and you can listen to it for free online anyway. Artists make their money from performances, promotions etc as opposed to record sales. I am certain the same thing will happen with books. An ebook today costs as little as 99 cents and the authors often have to give away a few free chapters to even get people to read that.

admin: I hear you, and I accept that this is the norm these days - especially when it comes to the Arts. However, I most definitely disagree with it for the reasons stated above.

I think that once this current generation realise that not allowing the majority of innovators and inventers to profit financially from their knowledge and skill will lead to the slower development of new ideas, they may see the reasoning behind the protection of IP.

In my trade we have programming tools that charge on a per use basis. Everybody hates them. The tools are expensive in the first place and they resent the fact that when they own the tool, they still have to pay to use it.
The Chinese have ripped the tools off and you can buy the same tool with the same software online for less than 5% of the cost of the original, AND it has no ongoing costs associated with using it.
Much of my time is spent campaigning to stop my fellow workers buying these tools. The problem is just perception. My colleagues can't see past today and realise that their ongoing investment allows the developers to continue R&D to stay current with the new models of cars coming out. Instead they all buy the Chinese tools and complain that new software isn't getting developed fast enough and that it's too expensive when it does come out.

From my perspective, the whole thing just seems so obvious. If we all just collectively respect the copyright, the initial cost would come down, since the developers would be confident that we would be repeat business for them. Instead they have to make their money in the short time they have before their tool gets knocked off.

nzlockie: If people can't afford the software and there's no alternatives available, that might also mean less locksmiths on the flipside.

admin: Locksmithing is a business. It's supply and demand. If there are less suppliers for a service or a needed commodity, cost to the consumer goes up, as does profit margin for the supplier. High profitability attracts new suppliers, which drives prices down for the consumer.

By the same token, if the people writing the software are unrealistic with their pricing then they won't sell as many units. It's in their interests to make the software affordable.
Copyright aids this process because they are able to fix the price at a point where the software is affordable and yet allows them to make a profit and continue development.
Without copyright, they either fix the price low and sell volume until the knock-offs catch them, or they set the price high and make their money from those who demand the quality and support, that THAT only works if the knock-offs are bad!

nzlockie: Well I know for web development for example, a lot of the software is priced so it's affordable for established agencies but not start-ups, with the expectation that they can just make do with inferior software, but of course there's a disconnect between that and what clients expect. At the point where even something like MS Office costs hundreds of dollars you have to wonder... the fact that there are free alternatives out there definitely reduces the barriers to entry. I know I certainly wouldn't be able to do what I do today if I couldn't do that.

It's the same, say, for textbooks. If I had purchased every textbook at uni I was assigned, it would be the equivalent of a 15% rise in my course fees. I'm sure some people can afford that, but it's problematic for the most of us.

admin: Yeah the difference with the MS Office comparison is that the free alternatives are not breaching copyright. So there's no issue with that.

With the textbooks you're basically saying, "It's too expensive to purchase them legitimately, so I'll steal them instead and if you don't like it then it's your own fault for making them too expensive in the first place." (Assuming we can't borrow them or lean on the Uni to reduce the number of books required etc)
The digital age makes this kind of theft quick and easy and society makes it relatively acceptable - but the fact remains that it's still theft and it still has consequences - mostly for the original owner.

The manufacturers of a product spend time, money and resource developing, producing and bringing that product to market. They should be entitled to assign whatever price tag they like to that product. Copyright should product their investment from outright duplication. I see this as being fair and reasonable.

On the one hand I see very little difference between stealing IP and stealing a physical object.
On the other hand, I see very little incentive for people to spend all that resource to bring an idea to market if there is no profit in it for them.

Today, copyright serves to protect the author, but in the long run I think it serves to benefit all of us.

There should be copyrights for intellectual property. I get frustrated when companies, especially in the US, start copyrighting DNA, words, and nearly everything that moves or lives.

Blackflag: Don't confuse Trademarks with Copyright here though!

I can see why people would get frustrated with companies trademarking commonplace words - as has happened several times recently - but that's a little different to copyright since there's no original property there.

nzlockie: You can copyright a word. NFL copyrighted the word superbowl. The word shazam, well that's copyrighted too.

Blackflag: Pretty sure that's trademarks. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl

admin: Although there are reasonable limitations here. Especially relevant for us: the national forensic league IS allowed to call themselves the NFL, for example, even though the football league has a general trademark on the term.

Blackflag: Also DNA is usually covered by patents, not copyright

admin: I was mislead by this article
http://www.cracked.com/article_20066_5-everyday-things-you-wont-believe-are-copyrighted.html

Blackflag: Lol, last time I use a comedy site as a credible source of information

Blackflag: Lol, hope so.

I just came by to figure out what these +1's are.

TheAntidoter: Fair enough. I wondered if those would get confusing.