I got about half way down the comments and all I was hearing was 'blah blah blah' you're all just going round in circles.
If you use 'bad' copies of XP you wont care about all this checking cause your'll just get a crack. (Using illegal software is a bad thing to do 'just say NO')
If you use legit copies no need to worry you have nothing to hide. You can call up to activate XP over the phone, to get the updates you need to be on the net so it won't make a differance.
Yeah it may take 5mins longer but what can you do, microsoft won't change it cause they think its helping to stop cracked copies of XP.

I look at it from an economic perspective. As a rational consumer, anything that'll jack up the price for me (like copyright), is bad. So are patents, which make monopolies, which are bad for consumers again (as well as other companies). As I said, it's a zero sum game. To give more money to publishers requires taking more money away from consumers.

The so-called "rights" of copyright are merely an artificial construct by publishers to enhance their bottom line at the expense of consumers.

Not to mention the lengths of copyrights are absurd, thanks to all that lobbying they do.

"The so-called "rights" of copyright are merely an artificial construct by publishers to enhance their bottom line at the expense of consumers."

That's either a gross oversimplification or sheer ignorance. Copyrights protect consumers, as well, and create an environment where creative people feel comfortable sharing their work.

You call it "protecting the bottom line". What about your bottom line? How would you feel if you submitted a work to a publisher, who then just sent you a thank you note and printed it, keeping all the credit and profit for themselves? What keeps them from doing that? Copyrights, maybe?

Who is in a better position to profit from theft? Little tykes sitting on their grandma's computers, or megalithic corprations with the ability to get their stolen material in stores lickety split? No, copyrights do benefit large companies, but in the long run they make sure the big companies pay for what they use.

Au contraire, it can be argued that copyrights actually hinder creative works more than it helps. Tell me again how exactly people are supposed to build on copyright works for their own creative works when things copyrighted in 1923 won't expire until 2019? You *may* have a point if copyrights actually expired within the lifetime of its creators. That, and if you can erase the history of people producing creative works even before concept of copyright (which did not occur until the printing press [note: not to be confused with monopolies, which did exist, but were generally controlled by the government, not private entities]).

Bingo! Like I said, copyrights benefit publishers. They were first sought after by *publishers*, NOT authors, and even after the Statute of Anne, copyrights benefit publishers the most, with most authors getting pennies for their works. Heck, who's the one benefitting from the decades of copyright after the author's death? (Hint: not the author )

Wha? Corporations already get volume discounts on most products (which isn't available to regular consumers either). Who benefits? Ask the majority of people in Asian countries who don't feel like spending a month's (or more) paycheck on de facto required software to run their computer. When I talk about companies benefitting from copyright, I'm not talking about corporations purchasing other corporation's copyrighted works. I'm talking about the corporations holding the copyrights benefitting by screwing regular non-corporate consumers. Your example doesn't even really work for most examples. I mean really, how many companies are going to buy Harry Potter, Galactic Civilizations/Grand Theft Auto, and Metallica/Britney Spears/whatever for their own use (i.e., not to be resold to non-corporate entities, but used on company grounds)

"Tell me again how exactly people are supposed to build on copyright works for their own creative works when things copyrighted in 1923 won't expire until 2019?"

How would you want someone to build upon your works? Perhaps by getting permission from the holder of the copyright? If you want to toil only to have some guy you never met sell CDs of your work on Ebay, fine. Don't force the rest of us to accept it such theft.

I think it is kind of sad that you discount any other method of 'use' beyond stealing. You realize, people build on old works all the time, right? Do they have to steal them to do so?

"Heck, who's the one benefitting from the decades of copyright after the author's death?"

Their family, estate, etc.

"When I talk about companies benefitting from copyright, I'm not talking about corporations purchasing other corporation's copyrighted works. I'm talking about the corporations holding the copyrights benefitting by screwing regular non-corporate consumers."

Screwing as in selling consumers a product they want, for the most they will pay, right? Odd, I don't remember them calling that "screwing" in either economics or biology class...

How would you rather be screwed? The reason I can stand up in a publisher and negotiate for them to publish my work is my copyright. Without it, they could do what they want, and sell it to whoever they want. The whole 'monopoly' argument is bullshit, frankly. I SHOULD have a monopoly on my own creative works. They are mine, until I decide for other people to use them.

If you want to live in some socialist state that fixes prices and tears your creative rights from you for the good of "the people" long before you stop benefitting from them, fine. Don't pretend it would be less corrupt, though. On the contrary, it would be vastly more corrupt, and artists would be grist for the uncreative mill.

How would you want someone to build upon your works? Perhaps by getting permission from the holder of the copyright? If you want to toil only to have some guy you never met sell CDs of your work on Ebay, fine. Don't force the rest of us to accept it such theft.

Even when they're dead? Actually, if I toil for these creative works, I'd probably be releasing them for free. So it doesn't quite work for me, nor the countless other freeware, open-source, etc. producers.

I think it is kind of sad that you discount any other method of 'use' beyond stealing. You realize, people build on old works all the time, right? Do they have to steal them to do so?

And if the copyright holders bother, they sometimes get taken to courts, thanks to the oh-so-wonderful laws.

Their family, estate, etc.

Assuming they even have a family, estate, etc. I'm sure the 8-14 cents per CD artists get really helps them. Nah, it's still the publishers who really benefit.

Screwing as in selling consumers a product they want, for the most they will pay, right? Odd, I don't remember them calling that "screwing" in either economics or biology class...

No, because it's probably not PC. Or do you really think that paying $50 more for some product (which you could've used to acquire other goods) just because you're capable and willing isn't extra burden on your finances? That's just plain naive.

How would you rather be screwed? The reason I can stand up in a publisher and negotiate for them to publish my work is my copyright. Without it, they could do what they want, and sell it to whoever they want. The whole 'monopoly' argument is bullshit, frankly. I SHOULD have a monopoly on my own creative works. They are mine, until I decide for other people to use them.

Or, just release it for free and benefit society. People did it before. People do it now. People will do it in the future.

If you want to live in some socialist state that fixes prices and tears your creative rights from you for the good of "the people" long before you stop benefitting from them, fine. Don't pretend it would be less corrupt, though. On the contrary, it would be vastly more corrupt, and artists would be grist for the uncreative mill.

Or maybe people could just produce creative works because, oh, that's their passion (see above on people releasing creative works for free)! There's no creative rights to be torn away if they don't exist in the first place.

*boggle*

"Even when they're dead?

Yes, like I said, the control of such copyrights would be transered with the estate.

"And if the copyright holders bother, they sometimes get taken to courts, thanks to the oh-so-wonderful laws."

if they steal, sure. You also see sequels and other derivitive works in the mainstream all the time and no one gets sued or goes to jail.

"Assuming they have a family, estate, etc. I'm sure the 8-14 cents per CD they get really helps them. Nah, it's still the publishers who really benefit."

Sounds like they needed a better agent. Regardless, it isn't for you to tell them how much they benefit from what they get. Under your plan they'd get nothing, and the CD company would STILL be making money.

"No, because it's not PC. Or do you really think that say, paying $50 more for some product (which you could've used to acquire other goods) just because you're capable and willing isn't extra burden on on your finances?"

No, because such a comparison is asinine. Do you really think paying $50 more for a product is "wrong"? People pay, or they don't. I fail to see the great evil in setting a price for the goods you sell.

I do, however, see a GREAT evil in mandating "fairness" and allowing people's work to be stolen, so that they gain no benefit at all.

"Or, just release it for free and benefit society. People did it before. People do it now. People will do it in the future."

You can, right now. Why aren't you? In the time you take telling other people what to do with their works, you could be making all sorts of stuff to give away, and use foodstamps, I suppose.

Isn't it enough that you have the right to release your works into the public domain? You want to force everyone else to do it, too?

Your particular take on copyrights doesn't seem to be about what you want to do with YOUR work. It appears to be you having a problem with other creative people having the right to choose how to sell their work and how much to sell it for.

There's no law against people being silly and giving things away. Go, now, make something nice and give it away. Then go work at McDonald's for 20 years and try and have the free time and will to make more stuff.

*boggle* Yes, like I said, the control of such copyrights would be transered with the estate. if they steal, sure. You also see sequels and other derivitive works in the mainstream all the time and no one gets sued or goes to jail.

Because they don't bother to go after them.

Sounds like they needed a better agent. Regardless, it isn't for you to tell them how much they benefit from what they get. Under your plan they'd get nothing, and the CD company would STILL be making money.

Under the plan, the CD company wouldn't make any money either. Remember, since they no longer have copyrights as well they can't stop people from just making copies of it and distributing it.

No, because such a comparison is asinine. Do you really think paying $50 more for a product is "wrong"? People pay, or they don't. I fail to see the great evil in setting a price for the goods you sell...

It's "wrong" in that it's a detriment to me. It's $50 that I can no longer spend on other products, which would benefit me even more, as well as the other companies I spend the money on.

You can, right now. Why aren't you? In the time you take telling other people what to do with their works, you could be making all sorts of stuff to give away, and use foodstamps, I suppose.

Technically, I do. The only thing I really make right now are forum image signature scripts though. You can get one that grabs your game stats from Savage at http://dracil.gwgaming.net/savage.zip, not that it'll do you much good unless you play it.

Isn't it enough that you have the right to release your works into the public domain? You want to force everyone else to do it, too?

Well, that *is* the idea with abolishing the concept of copyright.

Your particular take on copyrights doesn't seem to be about what you want to do with YOUR work. It appears to be you having a problem with other creative people having the right to choose how to sell their work and how much to sell it for. There's no law against people being silly and giving things away. Go, now, make something nice and give it away. Then go work at McDonald's for 20 years and try and have the free time and will to make more stuff.

It's there, go and make full use of it! You can use the peercast script as well when I finish re-coding it, and probably anything else I create that's not tied down by some corporation who believes in copyrights.

Since you seem to equate people giving things away as silly (is charity silly?) I guess the people who worked on Firefox are silly as well.

"Because they don't bother to go after them.

Please, you're trying to say that every derivitive work produced is illegal? ...and here I thought I was talking to someone that had at least a grip on reality...

"Under the plan, the CD company wouldn't make any money either. Remember, since they no longer have copyrights as well they can't stop people from just making copies of it and distributing it."

Hardly. That would mean anyone who wanted to sell it could. The Music Industry has a hammer-lock on production and distribution. The copyrights you are slurring now are the only thing keeping corporations from competing with you, selling your own work.

So, you'd have individuals vs. megalithic corporations. Just like now, only you would have taken away the only tool individuals have to protect themselves FROM megalithic corporations.

...and don't give me that downloads crap. At the height of Napster popularity, it barely effected music sales.

You talk like someone who's never paid for a server. How do you suppose you are going to pay for the millions of people downloading your 5 meg song, hotshot? Donations? Hardy har. Go talk to all the people who rely on them now, WITH exculsive rights to distribute. Bittorrent won't cut it, either.

"Well, that *is* the idea with abolishing the concept of copyright."

So, in the end this is just about you wanting a crack at other people's works whether they want you to or not. Nice. People already have the right to give things away. You just want to force them to under the ignorant perspecive that somehow corporations would suffer.

You'd be the first one bitching if Microsoft came along and started selling your supposed work. The only thing protecting you from it are the rights you are trying to undermine.

Then go work at McDonald's for 20 years and try and have the free time and will to make more stuff.

Careful Baker - Some of us do work in fast food. It's not a bad thing.

I've worked in fast food, and it is a bad thing.

Please, you're trying to say that every derivitive work produced is illegal? ...and here I thought I was talking to someone that had at least a grip on reality...

Technically yes, unless the copyright holder gives them explicit permission, or unless they can somehow outlawyer their lawyers under Fair Use. Isn't that how it works? Heck, even LucasArts go after people try to make Star Wars mods in their games.

Hardly. That would mean anyone who wanted to sell it could. The Music Industry has a hammer-lock on production and distribution. The copyrights you are slurring now are the only thing keeping corporations from competing with you, selling your own work. So, you'd have individuals vs. megalithic corporations. Just like now, only you would have taken away the only tool individuals have to protect themselves FROM megalithic corporations.

P2P? Without copyright and thus, copyright laws, they can no longer go after people distributing it. And when it's completely legal, I don't think people will have any qualms downloading it.

...and don't give me that downloads crap. At the height of Napster popularity, it barely effected music sales.

Not a valid example. That's in a copyright world, we're talking about a non-copyright world. And in the copyright world, it can be argued that P2P actually increases awareness of a product for people who are willing to spend money.

You talk like someone who's never paid for a server. How do you suppose you are going to pay for the millions of people downloading your 5 meg song, hotshot? Donations? Hardy har. Go talk to all the people who rely on them now, WITH exculsive rights to distribute. Bittorrent won't cut it, either.

Millions of people are distributing stuff perfectly fine on P2P with their home connections. I think you should tell them and their connections that what they're doing is physically impossible. If something I make is really that popular, there will be copies of it distributed in other places. And if it's not that popular, then bandwidth isn't that big of an issue.

So, in the end this is just about you wanting a crack at other people's works whether they want you to or not. Nice. People already have the right to give things away. You just want to force them to under the ignorant perspecive that somehow corporations would suffer. You'd be the first one bitching if Microsoft came along and started selling your supposed work. The only thing protecting you from it are the rights you are trying to undermine.

It's called a difference in ideology. And not really, or you'd have MS selling Firefox and every other freeware product out there. In this copyrighted world, they can't do that. In a non-copyright world, no one would bother paying them for it.

Oh, and really, if the only way you can argue is to make caustic comments and baseless assertions, that shows that you really don't HAVE an argument.

I've worked in fast food, and it is a bad thing.

No it's not. My bills are paid. I'm not on unemployment. Now I ask you to quit bad mouthing my line of work.

"Technically yes, unless the copyright holder gives them explicit permission, or unless they can somehow outlawyer their lawyers under Fair Use."

Then why do you keep pretending that derivitive works can't be made? That's exactly what I asked you earlier, so I guess you have a problem with asking for permission?

"Without copyright and thus, copyright laws, they can no longer go after people distributing it. And when it's completely legal, I don't think people will have any qualms downloading it."

Again, you ignore the fact that you are just granting companies the right to rip YOU off. You think people don't download mp3s just because they are scared? Hardly. You, yourself, say that P2P helps sales. People still buy music. The difference is, with copyrights the artist has some hope of seeing a profit.

"Not a valid example. That's in a copyright world, we're talking about a non-copyright world. And in the copyright world, it can be argued that P2P actually increases awareness of a product for people who are willing to spend money.

No, you are applying copyright realities to a non-copyright world. In other words you can steal from artists, but corporations somehow can't. You don't want to buy anything, so everyone else won't, either. In reality, lots of people would buy stuff nicely packaged and distributed by corporations, that the corporations didn't have to give the artist a dime for.

"Millions of people are distributing stuff perfectly fine on P2P with their home connections."

Bandwidth that is metered more and more. Explain to your ISP why you are donating their bandwidth to help Aerosmith distribute their new CD in the great "you don't have to buy anything" world...

"In this copyrighted world, they can't do that. In a non-copyright world, no one would bother paying them for it."

Why, then, are there copies of Dickens in your local bookstore? Why on earth would anyone buy it when they can download it? They same reason they would buy your stolen work instead of downloading it. Unprotected by copyrights, you wouldn't see a dime.

You're just being silly now. You don't want to pay for stuff, so you invent a system where you won't have to, and magically everyone will shun corporations that try to sell your works that lack copyright protection.

I am glad that you finally admitted that this isn't about fairness, rather it is about you wanting to force people to allow you to have their work for free, to use and expand upon as you like. It highlights the skewed definition of 'fair' you seem to have. I would love to see the tantrum you'd have when you got in line behind someone buying your "free" stuff, and not minding paying someone else for it...

Kona: I worked in fast food, and it sucked. Don't tell me what I can and can't say about my own experiences. In my opinion, if you work in a fast food restaurant, your job sucks. Sue me. There's enough PC crap going around as it is. I'm not in the least interested in being 'career sensitive'.

So you had bad experiences with fast food. So have I. Yet my current job is great as are the people I work with. I'm making money that's all I care about.

(This is a reply to the first incarnation of Kona's post #66, wherein he said that not only did I want to be insensitive, I also wanted to be an asshat about it...)

No, I'd like you to grow a backbone and not feel threatened when people say they'd rather make a living from their work instead of working at McDonald's. If you could make a living with your skins or other artistic work, you wouldn't be there either.

I don't feel theatened Baker. Far from it. I just think it's wrong to make fun of others chossen line of work. I don't see you making fun of Jafo for being an admin.

And by the way I didn't call you an asshat.

Dracil's point seems to be that without copyright, no one would sell these works, since they could be downloaded for free. In reality, book stores are right now chocked full of public domain work, and people buy it all the time.

Why would anyone buy skins when they can download them for free? Stardock sells archive CDs of skins that can be downloaded. Why would people buy public domain music when they could get it from P2P? Well, there is music in the public domain right now that people buy every day.

Under Dracil's system, they'd also be buying OUR work, and none of the money would get back to us. I could not as an individual promote and package and distribute my work as effectively as a corporation. So, people would be buying from them, just as they buy Dickens now instead of downloading it from Project Gutenberg.

We wouldn't be donating to humanity, we'd be donating to the industries that would no longer need to pay us for our unprotected work.

A good example:

Much of Gil Elvgren's, a pin-up artist, work ended up in the public domain after the companies he worked for went belly up. Right now, you can buy calenders featuring his pin-ups.

So, why do people buy them? Can't they just download the images and make the calender themselves? Those same people might be buying calenders featuring our work, were it not protected by copyright.

The idea that people won't buy professional goods while there are free amateur equivalents is silly. They do now, and they'd do it even more if all work lost that protection.

New Copy of Microsoft Windows XP... $89.99 (http://www.agsolutionspc.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=8)
Microsoft Validation Policy... $0.00
Accepting that you are willing to compromise your right to privacy for the sake of being legit... Pricele$$.

Pretty-well every person who argues for the abolishment of copyright or its concept have never actually 'made' anything of their own.

I have over 30 years in Architecture....I can go into hundreds of suburbs/cities/thousands of homes...and say..."I designed that....it's my creative/artistic/spatial artistry, unique to me".

No copyright constraints would mean some pimply-faced brat without a clue could take my work and claim it as his own.

Where is my reputation?...my portfolio?....how then could I prove accreditation?

A non-copyright world is unsustainable on so many levels...far more than this facile argument about restriction of derivative works, etc.

Academic debate it might be....reality it isn't.

Then why do you keep pretending that derivitive works can't be made? That's exactly what I asked you earlier, so I guess you have a problem with asking for permission?

Guess who won? LucasArts. So much for that derivative work being made under Fair Use.

Bandwidth that is metered more and more. Explain to your ISP why you are donating their bandwidth to help Aerosmith distribute their new CD in the great "you don't have to buy anything" world...

Not from what I've seen. Seems bandwidth just gets better and prices keep falling.

Everything else

As the crux of your argument now seems to be that companies will still publish anyway without copyright, fine. I'll agree it probably is true.

BUT, as far as your Dickens goes and the pin-up, notice how even today, books are not something that's really being pirated on P2P networks? It's the physical nature of books that makes the digital form a lot less appealing.

Talk about music, or software on the other hand, and that argument just falls flat and is in fact reversed. Just look at the amount of people who *will* do anything to get it for free, even with all the disadvantages that may occur (lower quality for most music, less packaging, etc.)

The key difference is that 1) the ease of copying the work into a form that is 2) useable in nearly the same ways is different between our examples.

Most people don't have a printing press capable of printing books and calendars and binding them up in nice glossy paper. People DO have computers capable of copying CDs to other CDs that's both fast and nearly free (price of the CD) with little if any quality loss.

And you seem to think I would actually care if they sold my work in nice packaging? Hey, even better. That's just more choices for people and it'll just spread my work and increase its longevity.

I have over 30 years in Architecture....I can go into hundreds of suburbs/cities/thousands of homes...and say..."I designed that....it's my creative/artistic/spatial artistry, unique to me". No copyright constraints would mean some pimply-faced brat without a clue could take my work and claim it as his own. Where is my reputation?...my portfolio?....how then could I prove accreditation?

That's actually a good point. But even without copyrights, would a pimply-faced brat actually have the design documents, witnesses (people you worked with), etc. to prove that it is his work anyway?

A non-copyright world is unsustainable on so many levels...far more than this facile argument about restriction of derivative works, etc. Academic debate it might be....reality it isn't.

Well, only the past half millenia has really been a copyright world... but I will admit the conditions back then were not quite the same.

But yes, this is just another forum debate, which is more reason people should stop getting so worked up about it. We all have our own ideas of how the world should be, but none of them are really going to happen. And the reality, as far as this discussion is concerned, is that the world will probably just get more restrictive and people will just follow along until we have something that's out of some sci-fi novel, but not quite as bad.

New Copy of Microsoft Windows XP... $89.99 (http://www.agsolutionspc.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=8) Microsoft Validation Policy... $0.00 Accepting that you are willing to compromise your right to privacy for the sake of being legit... Pricele$$.

Um, I'm pretty sure selling OEM CDs without the computer is illegal? No wonder that price is so low...