Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[BitterTea]

As I said, if IP laws are not needed for movies, you'd see copyleft movies replacing Hollywood ones.  That's how a market works.  At the moment you don't see that so it looks like copyleft films are not that popular.

Posting this on it's own...

Let us assume that money is a necessary incentive for creative works, and that without copyright, people would consume but not pay for such work. Truly a worst case scenario for the argument against copy, for if money is not a necessity or, people would voluntarily provide the incentive, then there is no argument for copyright. What happens in this situation? As the incentive to create new works disappears, the supply of new works decrease. Assuming that people still want new works (if they don't then what's the problem?), the demand is constant. What do we know about prices when supply shrinks and demand remains constant? Prices go up. An equilibrium is reached. All without intellectual property law.

Price for what goes up?  How does the demand get transferred to the movie makers?  If their product can be got for free, they can't recover the cost of making a movie so there will be far fewer movies.

They can only copy movies that are made. Think on it a while.

[1713896551]

1713896551

[1713896551]

1713896551

[1713896551]

1713896551

[1713896551]

1713896551

[Hawker]

As I said, if IP laws are not needed for movies, you'd see copyleft movies replacing Hollywood ones.  That's how a market works.  At the moment you don't see that so it looks like copyleft films are not that popular.

Posting this on it's own...

Let us assume that money is a necessary incentive for creative works, and that without copyright, people would consume but not pay for such work. Truly a worst case scenario for the argument against copy, for if money is not a necessity or, people would voluntarily provide the incentive, then there is no argument for copyright. What happens in this situation? As the incentive to create new works disappears, the supply of new works decrease. Assuming that people still want new works (if they don't then what's the problem?), the demand is constant. What do we know about prices when supply shrinks and demand remains constant? Prices go up. An equilibrium is reached. All without intellectual property law.

Price for what goes up?  How does the demand get transferred to the movie makers?  If their product can be got for free, they can't recover the cost of making a movie so there will be far fewer movies.

They can only copy movies that are made. Think on it a while.

Exactly.  So if you remove IP laws, you remove the incentive to make movies.  There is no way for the movie maker to get paid.

[Hawker]

...snip...

For example, a movie costs money to make and to market.  IP law allows you to recover that money if people go to the movie theatre to watch it.  Absent IP law, the movie theatre owner could get a free copy of your movie and you would lose your investment.

Seriously? If you're in the movie theater business and piss off the people who make the movies you show, you're not going to be in the movie theater business very long...

Why not?  If there is no IP law, the movie makers can't shut you down can they? 

Of course if your argument is that there would be no movies, then you are reinforcing the need for IP laws.

[FredericBastiat]

Um no it doesn't.  Intellectual property is not based on anything physical or anything in short supply.  Its based on protecting the investment of the people who pay for the work to be done.  For example, a movie costs money to make and to market.  IP law allows you to recover that money if people go to the movie theatre to watch it.  Absent IP law, the movie theatre owner could get a free copy of your movie and you would lose your investment.

What you described is nothing more than monopoly privilege thru force. Everything requires effort... EVERYTHING! One type of effort should have no greater privilege or protection than any other. Doing so only creates an accumulation of wealth to those who best know how to manipulate others. Look at any fiat paper money system as your best worst example.

You want to eliminate or diminsh competition. That's it. We all get to live with the consequences. As was well put further up in the thread, the masses suffer to enrich and benefit the few.

[MoonShadow]

...snip...

VALVe isn't dependent upon IP protection for revenue, although I'm sure that they would swing that stick if some major operation were to pop up making profits off of their work.  That short video that I linked to was produced by an independent film maker who used to believe that copyright laws protected artists, until she independently produced a full-length cartoon movie, and couldn't release it for sale because the basket of licenses required would have cost her $50K more than what it cost to produce the movie to begin with.  In the end, she released the movie several years after it was finished, but for no charge.  She can never charge any money for that magnum opus, yet she still manages to earn a living releasing her art as copyleft licensed work.
...snip...

That's one person.  There is a free market in movies - anyone can make one.  But all the good ones are made by firms that protect their IP.  If you are correct, there is no need to change the law as the copyleft movies will drive the expensive copyrighted movie makers out of business.

I say this not to prove you wrong btw - my point is that we don't need to take one another's arguments as being based on faith alone.  The market is working right now telling us what kind of movies people like.

And, again, you completely failed to present a counter example.  Why are you here?

http://www.showcasecinemas.co.uk/showtimes/default.asp?selectTheatre=8509

Is that enough counter examples?

As I said, if IP laws are not needed for movies, you'd see copyleft movies replacing Hollywood ones.  That's how a market works.  At the moment you don't see that so it looks like copyleft films are not that popular.

That's not even one example.  Major motion picture companies don't actually depend upon IP monopolies for their base revenue.  They would be fools to do so.  They depend upon operational security and contract law to prevent the early release of their movies.  They make most of their money off of those movie-goers who just can't wait to see the next blockbuster, because once it hits DVD I can legally head down to the local library and check it out for free.  Sure they will swing that big stick if things get out of hand, such as a counterfitter in Hong Kong is mass producing DVD knock-offs or a cinemia employee is selling pre-release copies of the film before the movie debuts; but their business model isn't dependent upon the IP monopoly for the base revenue of a new major motion picture.  Try again.

[Hawker]

Um no it doesn't.  Intellectual property is not based on anything physical or anything in short supply.  Its based on protecting the investment of the people who pay for the work to be done.  For example, a movie costs money to make and to market.  IP law allows you to recover that money if people go to the movie theatre to watch it.  Absent IP law, the movie theatre owner could get a free copy of your movie and you would lose your investment.

What you described is nothing more than monopoly privilege thru force. Everything requires effort... EVERYTHING! One type of effort should have no greater privilege or protection than any other. Doing so only creates an accumulation of wealth to those who best know how to manipulate others. Look at any fiat paper money system as your best worst example.

You want to eliminate or diminsh competition. That's it. We all get to live with the consequences. As was well put further up in the thread, the masses suffer to enrich and benefit the few.

As said earlier, its a balancing act.  Is it worth losing the freedom to sell copies of films in order to get the films in the first place?  For most societies, the answer is yes.

That's not even one example.  Major motion picture companies don't actually depend upon IP monopolies for their base revenue.  They would be fools to do so.  They depend upon operational security and contract law to prevent the early release of their movies.  They make most of their money off of those movie-goers who just can't wait to see the next blockbuster, because once it hits DVD I can legally head down to the local library and check it out for free.  Sure they will swing that big stick if things get out of hand, such as a counterfitter in Hong Kong is mass producing DVD knock-offs or a cinemia employee is selling pre-release copies of the film before the movie debuts; but their business model isn't dependent upon the IP monopoly for the base revenue of a new major motion picture.  Try again.

Actually, if the movie theater owners can legally show free copies of the films that they get off bittorrent, the movie maker is not going to get a penny.  The only thing stopping movie theater owners doing that is IP law.  So the movie making business is entirely dependent on IP law.

[MoonShadow]

That's not even one example.  Major motion picture companies don't actually depend upon IP monopolies for their base revenue.  They would be fools to do so.  They depend upon operational security and contract law to prevent the early release of their movies.  They make most of their money off of those movie-goers who just can't wait to see the next blockbuster, because once it hits DVD I can legally head down to the local library and check it out for free.  Sure they will swing that big stick if things get out of hand, such as a counterfitter in Hong Kong is mass producing DVD knock-offs or a cinemia employee is selling pre-release copies of the film before the movie debuts; but their business model isn't dependent upon the IP monopoly for the base revenue of a new major motion picture.  Try again.

Actually, if the movie theater owners can legally show free copies of the films that they get off bittorrent, the movie maker is not going to get a penny.  The only thing stopping movie theater owners doing that is IP law.  So the movie making business is entirely dependent on IP law.

Nonsense.  First run movie houses are generally bound by contract to 1) not show the movie for less than a certain amount and 2) not show the movie to the general public before release date.  Copyright says nothing about selling a legitimate DVD before it's release date, and employees would get fired for renting a new DVD before release dates when Blockbuster was still around.  Those companies are bound more by their commercial distribution agreements than copyright law.  Copyright is relatively weak, and has many exceptions.  Not the least of which is 'fair use', which is how Nina Paley can release her full length movie for free but not for any profit.

[Hawker]

That's not even one example.  Major motion picture companies don't actually depend upon IP monopolies for their base revenue.  They would be fools to do so.  They depend upon operational security and contract law to prevent the early release of their movies.  They make most of their money off of those movie-goers who just can't wait to see the next blockbuster, because once it hits DVD I can legally head down to the local library and check it out for free.  Sure they will swing that big stick if things get out of hand, such as a counterfitter in Hong Kong is mass producing DVD knock-offs or a cinemia employee is selling pre-release copies of the film before the movie debuts; but their business model isn't dependent upon the IP monopoly for the base revenue of a new major motion picture.  Try again.

Actually, if the movie theater owners can legally show free copies of the films that they get off bittorrent, the movie maker is not going to get a penny.  The only thing stopping movie theater owners doing that is IP law.  So the movie making business is entirely dependent on IP law.

Nonsense.  First run movie houses are generally bound by contract to 1) not show the movie for less than a certain amount and 2) not show the movie to the general public before release date.  Copyright says nothing about selling a legitimate DVD before it's release date, and employees would get fired for renting a new DVD before release dates when Blockbuster was still around.  Those companies are bound more by their commercial distribution agreements than copyright law.  Copyright is relatively weak, and has many exceptions.  Not the least of which is 'fair use', which is how Nina Paley can release her full length movie for free but not for any profit.

Um no.  If the owner of the movie theatre is getting the movie for free off bittorrent, he won't be signing any contracts will he?  Who would he sign it with?

[MoonShadow]

That's not even one example.  Major motion picture companies don't actually depend upon IP monopolies for their base revenue.  They would be fools to do so.  They depend upon operational security and contract law to prevent the early release of their movies.  They make most of their money off of those movie-goers who just can't wait to see the next blockbuster, because once it hits DVD I can legally head down to the local library and check it out for free.  Sure they will swing that big stick if things get out of hand, such as a counterfitter in Hong Kong is mass producing DVD knock-offs or a cinemia employee is selling pre-release copies of the film before the movie debuts; but their business model isn't dependent upon the IP monopoly for the base revenue of a new major motion picture.  Try again.

Actually, if the movie theater owners can legally show free copies of the films that they get off bittorrent, the movie maker is not going to get a penny.  The only thing stopping movie theater owners doing that is IP law.  So the movie making business is entirely dependent on IP law.

Nonsense.  First run movie houses are generally bound by contract to 1) not show the movie for less than a certain amount and 2) not show the movie to the general public before release date.  Copyright says nothing about selling a legitimate DVD before it's release date, and employees would get fired for renting a new DVD before release dates when Blockbuster was still around.  Those companies are bound more by their commercial distribution agreements than copyright law.  Copyright is relatively weak, and has many exceptions.  Not the least of which is 'fair use', which is how Nina Paley can release her full length movie for free but not for any profit.

Um no.  If the owner of the movie theatre is getting the movie for free off bittorrent, he won't be signing any contracts will he?  Who would he sign it with?

Ah, I see.  You assume that without copyright law, movie house owners won't bother with such contracts and simply wait until a copy shows up on the internet.  Under what assumptions do you come to such a conclusion?  You can't get a (decent) bootleg from the internet now until the movie is released onto DVD, so why would you assume that distribution contracts would be any less of a deterent without copyright?  Or any less of an advantage for the movie houses that play ball?  A 'dollar theater' might be able to do something along these lines without blowback, but not a first run theater.  Movies make 80%+ of every nickel in the first two weeks of a major release, for the production company anyway.

[BitterTea]

Um no.  If the owner of the movie theatre is getting the movie for free off bittorrent, he won't be signing any contracts will he?  Who would he sign it with?

"I'm not clever enough to figure out a solution this problem that doesn't require force. Thus, force is necessary!"

[Hawker]

Um no.  If the owner of the movie theatre is getting the movie for free off bittorrent, he won't be signing any contracts will he?  Who would he sign it with?

"I'm not clever enough to figure out a solution this problem that doesn't require force. Thus, force is necessary!"

Correct.  Neither are you "clever enough."  And there isn't really a "problem" is there?  The existing system is churning out movies just fine.

If you have an idea how a decent quantity of decent movies can be financed without IP law, let us know.  Alternatively, tell us what you offer in return for removing movies from our lives.

[Hawker]

...snip...
Ah, I see.  You assume that without copyright law, movie house owners won't bother with such contracts and simply wait until a copy shows up on the internet.  Under what assumptions do you come to such a conclusion?  You can't get a (decent) bootleg from the internet now until the movie is released onto DVD, so why would you assume that distribution contracts would be any less of a deterent without copyright?  Or any less of an advantage for the movie houses that play ball?  A 'dollar theater' might be able to do something along these lines without blowback, but not a first run theater.  Movies make 80%+ of every nickel in the first two weeks of a major release, for the production company anyway.

Since movies appear on bittorrent before they make it to the movie theaters, it's a safe assumption. Why would they pay when they can get it for free?

Of course its theoretical - most of the movies won't be made in the first place if there is no way to recover the investment costs.  That's why the IP law is needed.

[Rassah]

Economies evolve thus: specialist labor/product economy > group/assembly product economy > service economy. Example is first we had farmers and blacksmiths, then we had collectives and factories, and now we have financial services, IT, hotels, restaurants, etc. (If you ask McDonald's what their business is, they would answer real estate and services. The burgers are just pre made products anyone else can make). This is pretty much a fact of life for all economies, in the world, whether third world countries evolving with the times, or online communities like SecondLife (where most of the money was first made by individuals comissioning their skills, then by groups of people coming together to tackle and sell large projects, and finally with people doing stuff like running casinos, developing land and houses to rent, or supoorting sales tracking systems).
Movies and music are products, just like those of the first two stages of a developing economy. I am pretty convinced that this sector of the economy will be following the same trend, where we used to have individual musicians and movie makers selling their stuff, then for the last many decades we had them group together to churn out stuff colaboratively (actors, musicians, special effects guys, all working under big umbrella production companies to churn out stuff almost conveyor-belt style), and now with Napster and Netflix, we are finally moving into the services economy. It is MUCH easier to pay someone $7 to $10 a month for the service of storing, organizing, delivering, and suggesting content like music and movies, then having to search for what you might like, find a place to download it from, buy storage to hold it, and organize it so you can find it later. Copyright will have zero to do with this.

[BitterTea]

Since movies appear on bittorrent before they make it to the movie theaters, it's a safe assumption. Why would they pay when they can get it for free?

Because people don't go to the movies to watch crappy copies of a screener on a big screen.

Of course its theoretical - most of the movies won't be made in the first place if there is no way to recover the investment costs.  That's why the IP law is needed.

Your assumptions are:

1) People will not pay for something they can get for free
2) People will not make something if they cannot get paid

Prove those assumptions.

[FredericBastiat]

Exactly.  So if you remove IP laws, you remove the incentive to make movies.  There is no way for the movie maker to get paid.

Remember the antebellum south? I'll say it again, because the logic is approximate (reductio ad absurdum):

"But good sir, how shall we pick the cotton...?"

A little bit of slavery isn't any more justifiable that a lot of slavery. Go ahead and beat it up. I really don't care.

[Hawker]

Since movies appear on bittorrent before they make it to the movie theaters, it's a safe assumption. Why would they pay when they can get it for free?

Because people don't go to the movies to watch crappy copies of a screener on a big screen.

Of course its theoretical - most of the movies won't be made in the first place if there is no way to recover the investment costs.  That's why the IP law is needed.

Your assumptions are:

1) People will not pay for something they can get for free
2) People will not make something if they cannot get paid

Prove those assumptions.

Do you not believe in free markets?  Where people get things at the best price possible?

[MoonShadow]

Since movies appear on bittorrent before they make it to the movie theaters, it's a safe assumption. Why would they pay when they can get it for free?

Because people don't go to the movies to watch crappy copies of a screener on a big screen.

Of course its theoretical - most of the movies won't be made in the first place if there is no way to recover the investment costs.  That's why the IP law is needed.

Your assumptions are:

1) People will not pay for something they can get for free
2) People will not make something if they cannot get paid

Prove those assumptions.

Do you not believe in free markets?  Where people get things at the best price possible?

Where do "starving artists" fit into your view of free markets?  Do fans of quality entertainment never pay for the convience, fun and details of the original product?  You do realize that DVD extras are normal fare on movie disks now because of the general availability of VHS quality video on the Internet, right?  You will never consider the counter position seriously, because as you have already noted, you make your income by the direct influence of copyright protections.  At least, you believe that you do.

[Hawker]

Do you not believe in free markets?  Where people get things at the best price possible?

Where do "starving artists" fit into your view of free markets?  Do fans of quality entertainment never pay for the convience, fun and details of the original product?  You do realize that DVD extras are normal fare on movie disks now because of the general availability of VHS quality video on the Internet, right?  You will never consider the counter position seriously, because as you have already noted, you make your income by the direct influence of copyright protections.  At least, you believe that you do.

Artists can't help but produce and IP law is largely wasted on them in my opinion.  Same for musicians. 

A movie, that takes a huge up front investment and hiring a cast of actors and support staff requires financing and thus is in a different category.  There would be no shortage of music if artists had to perform for their money.  But there would be a dearth of movies if there is no way to get the capital costs of making a movie back.

[MoonShadow]

Do you not believe in free markets?  Where people get things at the best price possible?

Where do "starving artists" fit into your view of free markets?  Do fans of quality entertainment never pay for the convience, fun and details of the original product?  You do realize that DVD extras are normal fare on movie disks now because of the general availability of VHS quality video on the Internet, right?  You will never consider the counter position seriously, because as you have already noted, you make your income by the direct influence of copyright protections.  At least, you believe that you do.

Artists can't help but produce and IP law is largely wasted on them in my opinion.  Same for musicians. 

A movie, that takes a huge up front investment and hiring a cast of actors and support staff requires financing and thus is in a different category.  There would be no shortage of music if artists had to perform for their money.  But there would be a dearth of movies if there is no way to get the capital costs of making a movie back.

That's just it, there are many ways to get capital costs back.  As I have already mentioned, copyright is relatively weak law, and no rational production company is going to depend  upon it for their revenue.  They go to great lengths to keep advance copies from getting out, and they have contractural agreements with distributers to honor their "ownership".  That's also why software comes with 'swrink wrap' policies, as an attempt to shore up copyrights with contract law; pity it doesn't really fly unless the customer actually agrees to the terms in advance.  Why hasn't the shrink wrap licenses been challenged more in court?  Because most people buy the product and have no interest in sharing it online for no personal gain.  They respect the production company's 'ownership' of their work, even without the threat of legal action. 

[Hawker]

...snip...

That's just it, there are many ways to get capital costs back.  As I have already mentioned, copyright is relatively weak law, and no rational production company is going to depend  upon it for their revenue.  They go to great lengths to keep advance copies from getting out, and they have contractural agreements with distributers to honor their "ownership".  That's also why software comes with 'swrink wrap' policies, as an attempt to shore up copyrights with contract law; pity it doesn't really fly unless the customer actually agrees to the terms in advance.  Why hasn't the shrink wrap licenses been challenged more in court?  Because most people buy the product and have no interest in sharing it online for no personal gain.  They respect the production company's 'ownership' of their work, even without the threat of legal action.  

The people who matter from this point of view are owners of movie theaters.  If they can get the movies without paying royalties, they will of course do so.  And that alone kills the incentive to make movies.  Of course you could make the case that some movies would still get made, especially CGI ones using college computers.  But the likes of Titanic or Toy Story that take millions in up front costs would never get made.