Copyright benefits discussion [Split from DCE feasibility study]

[azrael]

Aramoro: Because I don't think 'benefiting business' should be an objective. Business exists to serve society, not the other way around. However a DCE would benefit business in so far as it would give them a quick and easy means of finding material, and paying for that material, relying on the exchange infrastructure to make sure the right person/people got paid. By providing that to business it allows those businesses to produce something society may like - thus benefits society (as the ultimate objective).

I disagree that a 'balanced' approach is needed. A balance of *what*? To be completely over the top with an unsuitable comparison ... if I wanted to chop someone's hands off, and they didn't want me to, a balanced result of me chopping off only one of their hands wouldn't be particularly fair. There is NO balance where my desires are inappropriate or unfair.

[Snarky Edit: I assume that public interests are regarded by the copyright industry as unfair ... that could be why they seem to have no care for them whatsoever]

If I am taking the position that non-commercial use of copyright should be allowed, or that copyright should be abolished, then I must take the position that a business' copyright-based interests do NOT need to be balanced against at all.

[aramoro]

Businesses like it or not are a part of society, not just there to serve society. They are fundamental to how our society functions right now. If you want to help society as a whole then you must be extension help business, who are essentially groups of individuals, exactly like every other group. Businesses are not some weird ethereal concept.

Non-commercial copyright or the abolition of copyright are consumer only standpoints, not the whole of society, just the consumer. At least be honest in your proposal and say it's consumer driven as the party is. What's the benefit to society of non-commercial sharing? More free stuff, and people love free stuff. But that is purely a consumer driven goal, not society as a whole.

[azrael]

Businesses like it or not are a part of society, not just there to serve society. They are fundamental to how our society functions right now. If you want to help society as a whole then you must be extension help business, who are essentially groups of individuals, exactly like every other group. Businesses are not some weird ethereal concept.

I will agree that business are part of society, but I will not agree with any concept by which business must be primarily benefited in the hope that society then will benefit from a trickle down effect. Businesses have their own motivators and their own objectives - their profit margins. It is in the interest of society that such corporate objectives are controlled and moderated - not vice-versa.

Businesses are not some weird ethereal concept? I disagree.

Non-commercial copyright or the abolition of copyright are consumer only standpoints, not the whole of society, just the consumer. At least be honest in your proposal and say it's consumer driven as the party is. What's the benefit to society of non-commercial sharing? More free stuff, and people love free stuff. But that is purely a consumer driven goal, not society as a whole.

You take a very limited and banal view of the benefits of free- culture, information, creativity, invention, etc, to society. I don't.

Perhaps you are suggesting we should weaken things further, and allow commercial entities free use of copyrighted items... i.e. total copyright abolition. Companies could then have the same benefits. It might promote competition, drive down prices, and a bunch of other things that end up benefiting society too. I think I will have to agree with you on that one.

[aramoro]

Businesses like it or not are a part of society, not just there to serve society. They are fundamental to how our society functions right now. If you want to help society as a whole then you must be extension help business, who are essentially groups of individuals, exactly like every other group. Businesses are not some weird ethereal concept.

I will agree that business are part of society, but I will not agree with any concept by which business must be primarily benefited in the hope that society then will benefit from a trickle down effect. Businesses have their own motivators and their own objectives - their profit margins. It is in the interest of society that such corporate objectives are controlled and moderated - not vice-versa.

Businesses are not some weird ethereal concept? I disagree.

I never said businesses should be primarily benefited, but if your proposal is to benefit society as a whole then it must benefit them in some way as well. Why do businesses have profit margins? So they can make money, and pay their employees and make money for their owners. Anyone who works for a business can easily see how businesses are a part of society. Any corporate objective is there to ultimately benefit a person, every person has different goals and objectives but they are all equally part of the society. Business often gets de-personalised in a strange way, like it's some sort of machine that we feed things into to get money out. In reality they are not, they are just a group of people trying to use their skills in such a way as they can make a living.

Non-commercial copyright or the abolition of copyright are consumer only standpoints, not the whole of society, just the consumer. At least be honest in your proposal and say it's consumer driven as the party is. What's the benefit to society of non-commercial sharing? More free stuff, and people love free stuff. But that is purely a consumer driven goal, not society as a whole.

You take a very limited and banal view of the benefits of free- culture, information, creativity, invention, etc, to society. I don't.

Perhaps you are suggesting we should weaken things further, and allow commercial entities free use of copyrighted items... i.e. total copyright abolition. Companies could then have the same benefits. It might promote competition, drive down prices, and a bunch of other things that end up benefiting society too. I think I will have to agree with you on that one.

I don't solely take that view but free stuff is the largest motivator for non-commercial sharing, that's just a flat out fact. Unless you're trying to suggest that this is just a free and frank exchange of cultural ideas for the betterment of society? Abolishing copyright is a puerile aim, and not one you can realistically hope to achieve. It would benefit large businesses greatly whilst screwing all those smaller businesses into the ground but then I guess that is fair in a way, survival of the fittest as it were. It does put you in the strange situation of backing Time Warner vs Beggars Banquet though and one would assume you would be the other way round.

What you should be campaigning for is a fair system, one which benefits everyone as best it can. If that, to you, is akin to cutting one of your hands off it suggests your position is too extreme. If you're that inflexible you will never effect change as it's easy to paint you as extremists, hand cutting off extremists.

[azrael]

I never said businesses should be primarily benefited, but if your proposal is to benefit society as a whole then it must benefit them in some way as well. Why do businesses have profit margins? So they can make money, and pay their employees and make money for their owners.

No, salaries come out before profits are calculated. Profit margins are objectives that benefit a small number of individuals. Society may be made up of individuals, but I do not think that every individual in a society should be given free-rein to maximise their individual benefits in a way that harms the rest of society. One can not arbitrarily state that society is benefited when corporations are benefited. This is why we have all sorts of laws controlling business - they have proven that they can not benefit society at large without regulation.

Abolishing copyright is a puerile aim, and not one you can realistically hope to achieve. It would benefit large businesses greatly whilst screwing all those smaller businesses into the ground but then I guess that is fair in a way, survival of the fittest as it were. It does put you in the strange situation of backing Time Warner vs Beggars Banquet though and one would assume you would be the other way round.

Perhaps copyright abolition isn't realistic. I should emphasise that abolition isn't Party policy. That said, I disagree that copyright abolition would benefit big-business over small-business. But perhaps you are right, and if that is how the market aligns itself, then that will happen. I don't disapprove completely of market forces - only that there needs to be strong regulation to provide protection for society from all the negative aspects of the free market. Should there be a strong need to provide extra protections for small-business, then there are many other ways to tilt the balance between small and big business as necessary.

What you should be campaigning for is a fair system, one which benefits everyone as best it can. If that, to you, is akin to cutting one of your hands off it suggests your position is too extreme. If you're that inflexible you will never effect change as it's easy to paint you as extremists, hand cutting off extremists.

Absolutely, we should be campaigning for a fair system. We should be campaigning to eradicate anything we see as unfair. The Party regards our current copyright laws as unfair. The Party currently has a policy of shortening copyright terms as a way of reducing the unfairness.

To bring this thread back on topic, the IPO have a feasibility study into Digital Copyright Exchanges as suggested by the Hargreaves review. If you have not yet already looked through their document please do take the time to do so. If you feel there is anything in there that is worth the Party having a position about, please do bring to attention in this thread

If you want to continue our off-topic discussion, I'd be happy to take it to another thread. Please feel free to start one and PM me a link to it.

[aramoro]

If you want to continue our off-topic discussion, I'd be happy to take it to another thread. Please feel free to start one and PM me a link to it.

Might be good if a mod could split this bad boy off for some context.

[topperfalkon]

This discussion was split from here

[azrael]

Thanks Harley!

[topperfalkon]

No problem. Carry on

[borgs8472]

What you should be campaigning for is a fair system, one which benefits everyone as best it can.

My personal opinion, PPUK has two stances on this front, as I believe correct.

On one hand, there's the reformist stance, where we seek to critique and improve upon existing models and legislation, which we do do.

The other hand is the consumer (e.g. pirate) advocacy front, defending the interests of our members and pirates as a whole. The latter, and the status quo is not a fair system, as disproportionate suing of people is not, nor is unfettered free for all downloading.

I get very annoyed at groups who defend the status quo and think we have non-broken copyright models or sufficient civil liberties from both sides of the argument which is much of the basic of my PPUK participation. The key step is bringing the mainstream on board with the idea that this is in fact the case, allowing us to suggest reform and so on and so forth.

TL;DR Fairness is not an issue for me.