What if copyright were abolished?

>>60199231
>Thoughts

>wah wahh property is bad
no, there's a reason copyright laws exist. tho I agree sometimes they are retarded they are necessary.

>>60199300
You didn't address anything he posted.

I agree with the arguments in the OP.

Is it even possible to remove copyright considering the amount of money it makes?

>>60199392
don't need to, only a communist would think it'd be a good idea.

>>60199632
http://questioncopyright.org/what_we_lose_when_we_embrace_copyright#starving
>>But how will X make money if copyright is eliminated?
>Copyright is a means to an end, the end being the creation of artistic works. The monopoly given out via a copyright is not an end unto itself--in fact, any monopoly is a nonoptimal and undesirable economic arrangement, all other things being equal. So it is wrong to be primarily concerned about the revenue of people that may have profited under this scheme because their earnings were not the point of the policy of copyright in the first place. There is no Constitutional right to the success of a particular business model.
>So can artists, software engineers, etc. continue to make money without artificial constraints on the distribution of information? Of course they can! In Against Intellectual Monopoly, Boldrin and Levine point out several instances where the absence of copyright has not led to bankruptcy. They give the example of authors in the nineteenth century who demanded an advance from a book publisher in return for a promise of sending the publisher the first finished work, enabling the publisher to get a first-mover advantage that would ensure profits. In modern times, they point to similar arrangements on works that are not copyrighted such as the 9-11 Commission Report that still bring in healthy earnings for publishers (even when the text is freely, legally downloadable from a web site). For breaking news stories, they argue, many often pay to get access to the headlines first, even though the same will eventually be available to the public at a later time. Other examples of industries that became profitable in the absence of copyright include the nineteenth century printed sheet music industry, the early twentieth century movie industry and the modern pornography industry.

>>60199667
>limiting free market
>not communist

>>60199690
Thanks for the spoonfeeding. I understand now, and agree.

I agree that copyrights should be abolished but a lot of people like them for some reason, I would be willing to allow them to stick around if they expired after 24 years and it applied retroactively to all current works older than 24 years.

>>60199868
If we really wanted to keep copyright, it should be limited to one year and fair use right should be greatly expanded.

>>60199690

Whole lot of examples from times before the internet (and easily being able to spread/copy information) was really a thing. Wonder why that is?

>>60199690
>They give the example of authors in the nineteenth century who demanded an advance from a book publisher in return for a promise of sending the publisher the first finished work, enabling the publisher to get a first-mover advantage that would ensure profits.

That would be an example of copyright.

>>60199300
But what even is property? Copyrights are just a privilege granted to you from the government allowing you to monetize ideas as a passive income stream.
The only real justification of copyright is on a utilitarian basis e.g. without being granted monopoly control over new ideas no one will ever invent anything new but that's pure bullshit since that's the whole point of capitalism in the first place... without copyrights you would just need new ways of financing things

>>60199231
If copyright was abolished, I could take all of your ideas, profit from them, and develop them in a direction that makes you feel disgusted but you are unable to do anything about it because people like it better than your own version.

>>60199691
>"free" market

>>60200163
You could make something new out of it? That would suck.

>>60200163
...Was that supposed to be an argument FOR copyright?
>tfw I've read literally tens of millions of words of Harry Potter fanfiction but have read the canon Harry Potter books only once or twice each
>tfw I've read literally tens of millions of words of Naruto fanfiction but haven't even read more than one or two of the canon compilation books
>tfw I've read three book-length Twilight fanfiction stories but have read absolutely zero canon Twilight books

>>60200133
>without copyrights you would just need new ways of financing things
Which don't work. Which is why we have copyright.

say you create something great that people want. You release it to market and start to sell it. A big company sees your product's potential, and decides to sell it themselves, with their overfunded marketing team, giant efficient distribution partners, and capital to offer better service and warranty.

You could try to "compete".
Then you would give up and wish you had never wasted your time creating something useful in the first place, if it only serves to make someone else money.

The other situation depending on the rules would be: anything that is created can be reproduced or copied at will for free by anyone, again removing incentive to create in many cases.

Other thoughts:
copyright doesn't really "make" criminals. It's not that hard to check before using someone else's work inappropriately. Though I do think some ways in which it is applied are against the spirit of the rules. But if you're taking something you didn't create, and marketing it as your own, that's dishonest and unfair.
I would agree that in some cases, copyright law is applied/interpreted unfairly, and I would support changing some of the related rules.
Being against intellectual property rights is nonsensical, and is easy to understand why once you create something you are very proud of and would like to see credit for your work. Also, copyright enforcement does not necessitate widespread spying. Just because the gov't may choose to do this and justify it, does not make it necessary or just. If you have a claim that someone infringed upon your copyright, you present evidence to the court and make your case. Then legal discovery will permit information gathering, there is no need to preemptively spy on everyone to prevent copyright infringement. That's the same garbage-tier argument for spying on everyone to preempt terrorism.

>>60200225
>say you create something great that people want.
Wouldn't that be patent, not copyright?

>>60200225
You're confusing patents with copyright. Patents expire. Unless you're providing warranty on a book? Or a movie?

>>60200225
>Being against intellectual property rights is nonsensical
Did you even read the article?
>Copyright infringement is also unrelated to plagiarism. Plagiarism is the act of passing someone else's work off as one's own; that is, failing to properly attribute the work to the correct creator. Copyright infringement is the act of distributing a work without the copyright holder's permission. To infringe on the copyright for the Beatles' "Hey Jude," I could, for instance, copy the song over a computer network to another location. In contrast, to plagiarize the Beatles' "Hey Jude," I would have to go around attempting to convince others that I actually wrote the song.
>Plainly, misattribution and copyright infringement are different things, but you would not know that from listening to, say, Hilary Rosen of the RIAA. Plagiarism is the cardinal academic and artistic sin, so it is no surprise that the content industry attempts to channel the outrage directed at plagiarizers for their own purposes.

One good example of what happens when copyrights are loosened is comiket in Japan. They have two of them a year and pretty much the main attraction is all the fanworks derived from popular mainstream works. In fact mainstream artists, developers, and writers mostly start out as fans making derivative works which they sell at comiket or similar events.

>>60200225
Woah man that's way to neutral and makes too much sense for a Mongolian basket weaving board.

>>60200255
>>60200261
>>60200282
Which rule would it fall under if you were selling someone else's work without claiming it was your own?
Maybe I have misunderstood.
If copyright law were abolished, would it be legal to pirate software? I'm actually unsure of this now. Is there a distinction between copying/using and distribution for money?

>>60200282
Without copyright there is no "original author" for all intents and purposes. The authorship belongs to anyone who can make a copy.
You only know it was The Beatles who wrote Hey Jude because they had copyright so no one else could slap their name on it. Remove copyright and it's now: "Chevrolet presents Hey Jude."

>>60200225
>It's not that hard to check before using someone else's work inappropriately.
Assuming you're including patents in this, it's objectively false. Patent trolling wouldn't exist.

>Copyright abolished
Corporations would start taking things into their own hands. No, really.

>>60200163
That's just like forking software. The best version survives the marketplace of ideas. The shitty forks don't get users/developers/contributers because they're shitty. You're free to create your own fork at any time and if people think your fork is better they'll jump ship. You don't have to be first, you just have to be better.

>>60200356
There are laws against plagiarism. Plagiarism has nothing to do with copyright, though it's related to trademark.

>>60200366
While I do think it's shitty that you can buy a patent, have no intent to sell the product, and simply use it to sue people with, if you're trying to sell something that is patented to someone else, you're still being unfair imo.
As far as patents vs copyrights, the way i understand it is that a patent is more for an invention, or a way of doing something. and a copyright is for a more specific work, like writing of some sort or art. I'm not sure that I find much difference in my position being that I would like to see both protected to a reasonable extent.

I'm still not sure of the implications of this argument in the OP.
Would this argument propose that pirating software be legal, but selling pirated software be still illegal? Or would neither be legal and I'm not understanding properly?

>>60200261
What really bakes my noodle is how patents are 20 years but copyrights can be like 120 years and counting (we're due for Disney to try and extend it again for Mickey Mouse soon).

That's such a large discrepancy. Disney will keep extending it as long as they can get away with it. Wouldn't surprise me if they just said "Fuck it, copyrights never expire. Now pass my bill."

>>60199300
>copyright
>property
lel

>>60200393
Anything to do with plagiarism only holds due to copyright. The law does not work on fanciful notions of what is "objectively good". If there's no injured party, there is no purpose to the law.

>>60200485
And there are a lot of billion-dollar corporations out there, why haven't any of them tried to keep extending patent protection to like 1000 years?

I think the biggest issue is that the idea of intellectual property isn't something inherent, it's something our culture has been taught over many centuries of precedent.

If America abolished copyright law right now, for the most part people would continue to treat IP the same way they do now.

Similarly, if you implemented America's copyright law into China, they'd still have their culture of stealing ideas. Their shitty counterfeit products would still be a thing.

>>60200522
probably because they benefit more from an invention's patent running out, so they can copy it and sell it themselves. Where as copyrights only benefit them as long as they can hold their own rights.

>>60200508
Plagiarism is fraud. If I steal the manuscript for Harry Potter, pretend that I'm J. K. Rowling, and get a contract from a publisher to write ten books, I'm defrauding the publisher because I'm not actually a good writer.

https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2013/10/07/difference-copyright-infringement-plagiarism/
>While copyright infringement has one victim, the copyright holder(s), plagiarism has two sets of victims, the copyright holder(s) and the people who were lied to about the origin of the work.
So, even without copyright, there's still a victim.

>>60200466
The idea seems to be abolishing copyright altogether, but maintaining things like trademark and attribution. Keeping trademark and attribution can deter fraud.

>>60199300

copyrights create artificial scarcity where none exists and reduce competition

>>60200572
That's the idea, to reduce competition for people selling what is rightfully mine :)

>>60200163
you and everyone else, too.
what's the problem? people already take advantage of someone else's ideas, anyway

>>60200559
>Plagiarism is fraud. If I steal the manuscript for Harry Potter, pretend that I'm J. K. Rowling, and get a contract from a publisher to write ten books, I'm defrauding the publisher because I'm not actually a good writer.
Without copyright you wouldn't get a deal in the first place, since who pays for free content?

>>60199231
Copyright doesn't just protect digital works, it protects all works.
Abolishing copyright wouldn't fix anything. The problem is that the copyright periods are grossly over extended. There's no reason for TV shows/movies to have like 50 year copyright protection when money basically stops being made after 5 years. There's no reason for artworks/literature/etc to have 50 year copyright AFTER THE AUTHOR'S DEATH.

Copyright is necessary for production works to make a profit. Copyright can be used to protect academic research, ensuring that it IS available.

The other problem with copyright is companies that hold copyright. The problem with academic research is often that researchers have to sell out to some corporation to get funding and thus sell the copyright to the corporation, but that's not the only way it can be done. What we need is more public funding for research so that the researchers can retain the copyright, then they can make the research as available as they want.

Copyright is necessary. It's just being abused by corporations.

>>60200571
I mean, I could support reducing copyright law and its reach. But on a basic level, I believe there should be some protections granted to creators. I mean, if microsoft stole and sold an OS i write, just because they put "thanks to anon for his great work!" on the product, I'm still mad as hell.

>>60200598

>selling what is rightfully mine

there is nothing that exists that did not build on previous work that you yourself did not invent

there is also no way to prove you did not steal the idea from someone else

imagine a world where Calculus was patented

>>60200643

most art is derivative, copyright does not produce better content is just produces poorer consumers

>>60199690
>In Against Intellectual Monopoly, Boldrin and Levine point out several instances where the absence of copyright has not led to bankruptcy.
Only "several"?

>>60200133
>Copyrights are just a privilege granted to you from the government allowing you to monetize ideas as a passive income stream.
You're thinking of Patents.
That's a completely different kettle of fish. Copyright means you have actually produced something.

>>60200654

>I mean, if microsoft stole and sold an OS i write, just because they put "thanks to anon for his great work!" on the product, I'm still mad

copyright laws do not serve justice for all, they serve justice for whoever has the better legal team

we live in world where microsoft could make the case that you stole it from them

>>60200656
Copyright isn't there to try and improve media, it's a protection against something you have produced being replicated and/or redistributed by a third party without your consent.

>>60200225
>say you create something great that people want. You release it to market and start to sell it. A big company sees your product's potential, and decides to sell it themselves, with their overfunded marketing team, giant efficient distribution partners, and capital to offer better service and warranty.
Ya and you have a time window to profit, if you can't in that time then you lost out, when things are reversed engineered they will be produced and sold cheaper, everyone wins in the end

>Then you would give up and wish you had never wasted your time creating something useful in the first place, if it only serves to make someone else money.
Just get the money upfront or don't operate under the illusion your going to be able to indefinitely milk your product beyond the time it takes to reverse engineer

>The other situation depending on the rules would be: anything that is created can be reproduced or copied at will for free by anyone, again removing incentive to create in many cases.
All what the government is doing here is creating artificial scarcity, we can have abundance already but it would require some '''people''' to lose their passive income streams

>>60199231

trademark is the only thing that should exist

>>60199231
then who will china copy?

>>60200656
I'm not saying that works don't build on past knowledge, that's the basis of human progression. However, the few things I have created have definitely not used anything that was copyrighted/patented by anyone else.
The way I understand it is if there is a copyright claim, the court looks into the matter and tries its best to verify the validity of the copyright at that time. And if you copyrighted something that was not fully yours to copyright, the court may discover this and you would lose.

Honestly, I'm not sure if mathematical reasoning can be patented or not. But since no one is selling math, I would think that would preclude anyone from getting prosecuted for performing calculations in any case.

>>60200718

>it's a protection against something you have produced being replicated and/or redistributed by a third party without your consent

copyright is not a metaphysical entity, it is a field of law for securing the finance of whoever can hire intellectual property legal council

>>60200205
This is an argument for you shit taste

>>60200685
you're right about that, but that's not a fault of the copyright law, it's more of an indictment of the legal system.

>>60200753

>Honestly, I'm not sure if mathematical reasoning can be patented or not. But since no one is selling math, I would think that would preclude anyone from getting prosecuted for performing calculations in any case.

this literally happens all the time because of intellectual property law for software patents and DRM, and trivial arguments about protecting artists are enabling this bullshittery

>be pharmaceutical company
>spend hundreds of millions on research, expensive equipment and personnel, paper work to allow animal testing, decades of work
>finally find a drug that relieves the pain of ill people
>jonny chong, who didn't spend a second of his time and money on costly research, is allowed to practice deformulation (easy af) and sell it for 1/100th of the price

same for books, people spend half a decade working on them for some nobody to be able to seize all the rewards? fuck that.

>>60200757
Well of course, but then that's basically how all laws work. It doesn't make copyright any less necessary.

>>60200729
That time window could be extremely short, depending on the product. So you sold 3 copies, then Walmart starts selling your product by the thousands and you never sell another one.
How do you propose to "get the money upfront"? By selling the distribution rights to Walmart first? That, I believe, would require copyright protection in the first place.
It doesn't create scarcity of product, it puts the scarcity of distribution in the hands of the creator, which imo, I should be free to sell my product to as few or as many partners as I wish.

>>60200222
Redhat is doing fine. So are a lot of other open source companies.

>>60200776

those two are inseparable and the first is far more likely to change than the latter


>>60200812

>>spend hundreds of millions on research, expensive equipment and personnel, paper work to allow animal testing, decades of work

S U B S I D I E S

>>60200836
Again though, I would argue against any and all subsidies. What's the incentive to spend?

>>60200812
The main problem with this is that I think pharmaceutical companies should be more strongly government funded and thus less reliant on profit from the medicines to recover their investments.

Considering most governments end up fitting the bill anyway (through public health) it would probably cost them less in the long run if they helped fund the research more and allowed the companies to shit out cheaper drugs.

>>60200828
Redhat is selling support. Can you imagine a desktop OS manufacturer who makes all the money from selling support? No.

>>60200828
>make broken, unusable software
>sell support
I'd rather every company not follow that model.

>>60200836
I disagree that because the system is broken, a just law that gets abused should be abolished to prevent abuse. It should be rewritten to prevent abuse under the corrupt system, or the system should be fixed. Now we both know the system won't be fixed, like you said, but I still think removing just laws is a bad idea.

>>60200859

>The main problem with this is that I think pharmaceutical companies should be more strongly government funded and thus less reliant on profit from the medicines to recover their investments.

THEY ALREADY ARE

the supplies they buy are taxpayer subsidized

the infrastructure they use is taxpayer subsidized

the universities their employees and researchers went to are taxpayer subsidized

when they turn around and fuck the taxpayer in the ass with price jacking it's straight up robbery

>>60200225
>say you create something great that people want. You release it to market and start to sell it. A big company sees your product's potential, and decides to sell it themselves, with their overfunded marketing team, giant efficient distribution partners, and capital to offer better service and warranty.
This already happens. That's why a lot of today's art is pure shit made purely to make money. Also on itunes you can find songs of artists who are already dead. The people who sell it have no relation to the artists whatsoever.

>>60200902

>the way these laws are used will never be just but they are still just laws

>>60200871
What's your point? Their support would be useless without the software they produce. They have direct interest in improving their software to sell more support.
Microsoft and apple wouldn't need copyright either to make money, they could sell hardware and support, but obviously they will try to corner the market with shady shit and start rent seeking as much as possible. Because that makes even more money, money they honestly don't deserve, if it weren't for unfair copyright laws.
The argument that without copyright there's no money to be made is completely wrong.

>>60200643
>Copyright is necessary for production works to make a profit.
There's no reason to believe this, people profiting today from the current system would say that just because they are profiting from it. You could finance things and produce stuff but the way you do it would have to be slightly different. The "issue" is there would be a "free loader" "problem" but that would just mean everyones living standards and access to content would be improving.

>>60200825
The way I see it rich people would end up paying inflated initial costs for goods (rich people already do this to signal their wealth) and then competition comes in and prices are driven down quickly enough.
The only reason you can have such a long time span to profit off ideas today is because government thinks this is necessary to encourage innovation, this might have been true 100 years ago but I don't think it is today with internet spreading information so fast

>>60200893
It's so broken, 90% of all fortune 500 companies are running it. Shut up fucknugget. Copyright sucks.

>>60199300
>extend the lifetime of the owner + 100 years
Thanks, Disney.

You can look forward to Star Wars sequels and repackaged "princess edition" videos for the next century.

Meanwhile, they are scooping up all the IP they can find.

Disney ruins everything it touches.

>>60200893
So do you rather companies make malware and sell it for money, like e.g. Microsoft does?
>>60200945
My point is they can make way more money owing to copyright. You got it right.

>>60200836
I don't think subsidies are the way to go, it would completely politicize biomedical R&D.

Abolishing copyright would just force big pharma to compete with pajeets on a manufacturing basis. That's all. Not being able to subsidize the cost of R&D with the final product can be offset with selling massive volumes of dirt cheap drugs globally.

>>60200753
You can file a "technology patent", but you cannot patent mathematical formulae or business processes.

By that argument, filers should have to prove their "invention" is novel w.r.t. all existing configurations of hardware, since mere sequences of operations, written or otherwise, are not by themselves patentable.

BUT, we've had the xor-cursor guy and other BS, so we can rest assured that nobody in that office of the government is paying any attention.

>>60200633
>Without copyright you wouldn't get a deal in the first place, since who pays for free content?

Tons of people do.

I know this is hard for you to understand, but white people like to pay their money to a content producer, regardless of whether or not they can get the content or product for free; just look at how often people tip.

>>60199690
The profits described here would not be nearly the same. People can make billions of dollars from a movie these days. It's an inflated market propped up by shitty laws

>>60200861
government is awful at deciding what should or shouldn't be funded, they are just politicians not angels, enjoy a bribing fest.

>>60200987
And ISPs can make more money bribing state governments to defend their monopolies and sell 100gb datacaps for 200 bucks.
Those corporations are the real freeloaders. They bribe the government into forcing you to accept their retarded business models, and then suck the money out of you like a parasite.

>>60200912
You are right. However, Even with all of that subsidization, a lot of which I would argue should be stopped, these companies (some of which are straight evil i admit) still spend millions of their own dollars on developing drugs, etc.. so removing their ability to sell their drugs exclusively at least for a while removes all incentive to create them.

I will agree that the price gouging they get away with is sickening. Most other sectors can really only get away with selling something at a fairly reasonable profit margin. Food margins are within a few percent usually. Tech margins are higher, but most things aren't crazy like some of the drugs going for ridiculous prices.

There is one quandry which I don't have the answer to. If you're a drug company developing a treatment for a rare disorder, and you only expect to sell to a few hundred people per year, and it costs you millions to develop the drug, if selling the drug at 10,000 per pill will let you break even after 20 years, is it price gouging to sell the drug at that price? I mean, poor sick people can't afford that, and it seems cold-hearted. Yet who would pour millions into a project for nothing? You could argue philanthropic groups and gov'ts could do such things, and I think that's great. And you can be damn sure if I created a cure for something, I would love to sell it to everyone for pennies and be happy I improved the world. But I don't have millions of dollars to speculatively create drugs, and those who do would surely spend their millions on something else, right?

>>60200133
>>60200163
There nothing wrong with copyright, it's just broken and too long at the moment

>>60201013
Exactly. That's why the vast majority cartoons and movies are made only to make money. Promote some ideas, sell some junk, popularize some shitty singer (who in turn has no voice but is popular because idiots by his/her art on itunes)

>>60200934
>the way painkillers are used can kill people but they are still good if used properly

>>60201084
>will
>can

>>60200828
They made only 350 million on 2 billion in revenue.
Microsoft made 17 billion on 53 billion.

So RedHat is barely staying afloat in a system where people expect to pay for software.
Embrace a system where everything is free and how much do you think they can extract?

Note they don't even publicly release the software in order to make every effort to look like it's proprietary.

>>60201000

>it would completely politicize biomedical R&D.

it already is: against DIYers and the open source community

the FDA is shutting down DIY bio labs without any pretext for anything like public health risks while companies like Monsanto can make all the zombie plants they want

>>60201055

>it costs you millions to develop the drug

THIS IS BECAUSE CEOS ARE PAYING THEMSELVES MILLIONS OFF OF THE SUBSIDIES

Copyright laws are shit, BUT if the owner can hide his invention from normal people to copy (for example a circuit with glue on the components) is totally fine. We don't have to be Stallmanites trying to force everyone into our utopia.

>>60201115
>They made only 350 million on 2 billion in revenue.
>Microsoft made 17 billion on 53 billion.

>oh noo, we have 5% less profit margin than microsoft, quick, start bribing the government and hardware manufacturers to give us a monopoly too and then buttfuck people with it

>Note they don't even publicly release the software in order to make every effort to look like it's proprietary.

It's called centOS, they literally bought it to update it faster than before they owned it.

>>60200958
I agree with the general idea.
I think that competition usually comes in the form of a copyright holder making distribution deals for their product, so that many companies can sell it, and the copyright holder gets paid, either upfront or a % of sales, then the mass production/marketing reduces cost.
Also, I think maybe the key idea in all of this thread is what should and shouldn't be able to be copyrighted or patented. I feel like if I write software to do something, someone else is free to write their own and sell it themselves, but if they just want to copy mine and sell it, they can buy the rights from me or they can fuck off. But there are some things that I think shouldn't be allowed to be copyrighted. Similar to the patent rules, you have to show that your invention is sufficiently new and innovative, and isn't just reapplication of other ideas.
And I also agree that the length of copyrights is far too long.

>THIS combination of 1s and 0s is MINE and nobody else has the right to it!
that's all copyright is

>>60200958
Problem is that donation or funding systems wouldn't work for most artists starting out and even many existing artists.

I think were are all about the same here, we have some things that we buy and other things that we pirate. Some of us more, some of us less.

If everything was legally free to obtain, how much would you spend on donations and funding in comparison to now?

I know that there would be some argument towards artists getting a larger slice of the pie if they get money directly, not having to divide between their label and producer, etc but I just don't see it working. Especially trying to go from the systems we have now into completely abolishing copyright.

If copyright had never been created then we would have created different systems for the production and distribution of content, and the public would familiar with it, it would the they way they expect it to work.

>>60201034
The government shouldn't have a hand in deciding what sort of research is going on, but rather just putting money into the pharmaceutical companies. It could be a claim back system or something where for every $2 they spend on research they get $1 back or whatever.

>>60201208
>this number is illegal to share on a bunch of cables with sand connected to them as decreed by a few million men with guns

Really filtrates my walnuts

>>60201208
>this collection of molecules is mine and nobody else has the right to it!
I'm only trying to sell your kidney.

>>60201120
Oh come on, that's just disingenuous. Of course the CEO's make millions. Their salaries still pale in comparison to total spending/revenue. And if a drug cost 50 million to make, and the CEO made 10 million during that span, they still spent 40 million dollars on actual research, even if they took your socialist view that CEO's should be paid minimally. (You do need someone competent at the top, and to attract the best talent to an important position, you need to offer competitive wages, which is why these guys make so much, because the companies have driven the price up that high for a quality leader. Same reason QB's make all the money.)

>>60201312

>your socialist view

that CEO is SUBSIDISED

>>60201359
Well, I am against subsidies. And honestly, corporate subsidies go to the entire company. How they choose to spend their money is up to them. By these type of arguments, you would think the greedy evil corporations would like to pay the ceo as little as possible to maximize profits right? but they continue to drive up ceo wages because..it makes them more money than having a lesser paid, lesser qualified ceo. If you're literally arguing that ALL of the money these companies spend is from gov't subsidies, I suggest you look at corporate accounting reports and their received subsidies, as I highly doubt the gov't fully funds any one company, which again, I am against in all forms.
So, again, however much the company spent that was not from a subsidy, is still money that they would expect to recoup by selling their product, right?

>>60201450

>I highly doubt the gov't fully funds any one company

I don't work in pharma, but I have worked in medical tech that uses pharma, and I can tell you there are thousands of companies almost completely funded by government subsidies and legislation

>>60201495
I guess I'm honestly not that surprised. It's preposterous really. Why would the gov't fully fund a company but not do it on their own? Is it their way of indirectly confirming that they know gov't is so inefficient that they'll never get the same results as a private company, so they let a private company use their money to accomplish a task? I wish there were no subsidies, it's a classic case of socializing cost, and privatizing profits.

>>60199231
There is no need to abolish copyright, copyright can be fixed easily with the following changes:
>You cannot trademark words found in the dictionary, or words/symbols used freely the public domain.
>Intellectual property should only exist for media, designs, products, prototypes, etc.
>Intellectual property should not protect vague concepts/ideas, nor should it be granted to already existing concepts with minor tweaks (e.g. shoes, but online shoes)
>Your copyright is null and void in a region if you do not actively sell the product to the region
>Copyright terms should be rolled back to 25 years, or the death of the author. Which ever comes first. Life of the author plus 90 years is bullshit.
>Orphan works are released into the public domain after a year.
>Bad faith DMCA claims result in harsh financial penalties to be paid to the person wrongly DMCA'd.
>DRM is made unlawful as it inhibits your legal rights.
>Research that receives tax dollars must be made fully available for free in some form.

>>60201495
>>60201695
It's incomprehensible that a gov't would spend money developing something, and let a company sell it for money, rather than selling it themselves, slightly above cost. And people want to give these clowns more power.

Thanks for the interesting discussion /g/, I always enjoy these kinds of bantz when they stick to the arguments instead of pointless insults.

>>60201733
stop making so much sense ;)

>>60201695

>s it their way of indirectly confirming that they know gov't is so inefficient that they'll never get the same results as a private company, so they let a private company use their money to accomplish a task?

those companies are just as inefficient, and every time someone's hands get involved in the process

the problem is that CEOs become incumbent because they will square good deals and connections with the rest of the board or other companies, who in turn gang up and rack up subsidies through lobbyists or connections to politicians, who in turn create subsidies for the people who put them in power, and since corporate performance metrics are internal, and government contracts get renewed on a convenience or you-scractch-my-back-i-scratch-yours basis rather than a performative one, the circle of bullshit continues and the costs are lumped on the taxpayer

I am religiously anti-intellectual-property-law because it is the only feasible wrench in the system that will allow for competition and lower cost alternatives to our horribly corrupt infrastructure

>>60201733
>Intellectual property should not protect vague concepts/ideas, nor should it be granted to already existing concepts with minor tweaks

this is impossible to enforce because your argument because metaphysical and the only people who win are large corporations and IP lawyers

>>60201782

*argument becomes metaphysical

>>60200054
It's not you dumb shit. The publisher is free to use the preview as he wants but has to pay a sum to get the rest which is a contract.

>>60201782
I actually agree with this entirely. However, I'm not sure if I will come around to being anti-IP law. In your opinion, would making all subsidies illegal impact this problem? Would you say: not at all; somewhat but not enough?
I mean I agree that a lot of these ceo's/companies are shit, and I would be in favor of some situations where the gov't funds it's OWN reasearch, for the benefit of the country. I see no reason to subsidize any business, they either compete on their own merits or they don't.
As far as competition, I like a lot of what this anon says >>60201733
which I think would help competition in some areas greatly. If something I have a copyright for can be re-engineered and sold by someone else, then great, I don't care. But if they are just copying mine and selling it without giving me a share of their profits, I think that's unfair competition.

File: yr4jT84.jpg (177KB, 1682x2198px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1682x2198px

ITT

I would rather patents be honored, rather than copyright. Fraud prevention and punishment should always be enforced. Copyright should either be short-term oriented or nullified, as it hinders others from being able to compete with your implementation of an idea.

>>60201931
not really , we were having a pretty constructive discussion, which I suppose nowadays could be considered autistic, sadly.

>>60201865
The publisher having the right to first copies is copyright. Note it's worth nothing to the publisher if they do not have any exclusivity.

>>60201880
>would making all subsidies illegal impact this problem?

that will never happen the problem is too ingrained, while IP law is heavily lobbied as well, the subsidies issue is a structural problem, it is far easier to knock down frivolous IP enforcement and encourage people to use free and open systems, which in turn will bankrupt the obesely subsidized infrastructure as a side effect

Linux and other GPL software is a great example, IBM, Apple, and Microsoft have been subsidized as tech providers for school and government systems since the 1970s, and the only thing that has put a dent in their oligopolies and walled gardens has been tech like Linux and other open source or foss software that provides competition

>>60199231
Although I absolutely agree that it does more harm than good, I would probably withhold anything I make to prevent someone from claiming it as their own. It's pretty shitty seeing people profiting off your work.

>>60199231
Copyright exists because it takes work to produce that which is then copyrighted. Arguing against copyright on principle is like arguing against the right of anyone to profit from anything they built like a house. The copyright problem is in the finer details like duration.

>>60201865
But the publisher won't pay in a non-copyright world where anyone can publish the same thing for profit (like some website full of ads) immediately after the original publisher.

>>60202081

>Copyright exists because it takes work to produce that which is then copyrighted.

the scope of that work is far beyond the sole initiator of the copyright,


>Arguing against copyright on principle is like arguing against the right of anyone to profit from anything they built like a house.

not if the government came to my area and said "we're going to set this aside as an area to gather materials for house-building at detriment of everyone living here", the best subsidized industry in that area becomes gathering house making materials, house making materials become cheap for everyone else at detriment to the free market of my community, and then someone says comes to my area for government subsidized house building materials, then proudly claims "I alone built this house, and I alone get to choose the rents here"

>>60201967
I can definitely appreciate that. I'm a big fan of open source. You are right about the structural problem as well. I guess I'm still in favor of intellectual property rights in principal, while maybe the laws, at best, don't strictly enforce the spirit of the law only, and at worst, are a weapon wielded unjustly by a corrupt system in outright violation of the spirit of the law.

Also, I've thought about this before, and it would appear that, while impossible to get such a bill passed, a law could be written which simply makes it illegal for the gov't to give gifts, payments, or transfers of any kind to any entity outside of [gov't assistance programs: welfare, ss, medicare/aid, etc..] and tax refunds.
Some things are very hard to legislate against. This one I think could be done pretty concretely. But I'm sure the lawyers would figure out something.

>>60202161

> I guess I'm still in favor of intellectual property rights in principal, while maybe the laws, at best, don't strictly enforce the spirit of the law only

reals > feels, your idealism may be hurting you and your community, and it is more realistic to combat corrupt IP legislation than the subsidies monster

>>60202028
Why do you think secrecy will solve anything? The very basis of capitalism is that other people are profiting off of your work. The way to function within the system is not to stop them from profiting altogether, but to figure out how to take a higher cut of their profits for yourself.

>>60202187
Maybe.
But the subsidies are still the root of the problem, and aside from this discussion, are still immoral. I prefer to attack the root. The problem still remains then. If the gov't gave a very small subsidy which was used to create something that cost much more in development, the company is entitled to some profit I would argue? How much though, they didn't bear the entire cost, but they contributed most of it. Or say it was half of the cost. How do you come to a reasonable amount?
Without copyright laws, at least a law based on the principal itself, companies won't bother producing something new unless it is cheap enough that they can profit from it while everyone else attempts to drive the price down to production cost only, rather than full development cost. Which means for pharma especially, production costs are in many cases near 0. The entire cost is development, so why create a drug that cost millions if everyone can sell it for basically nothing from day 1, which forces you to do the same.
You could argue the heavily subsidized companies may still do it, since the cost to them, depending on how much they receive, could be very low. But most companies wouldn't have this privilege and would stop creating anything high budget.

Copyright is immoral, it uses the force of government to exclude competitors destroying the notion of a free market.

>>60202081
>Copyright exists because it takes work to produce that which is then copyrighted. Arguing against copyright on principle is like arguing against the right of anyone to profit from anything they built like a house.

This is a nonsense analogy and a misunderstanding of economics. Capital does not convey a right to profit, it conveys a right to production. Arguing for copyright on principle is saying that other people do not have the right to production using their own property because someone else thought of the specific idea first.

>But the publisher won't pay in a non-copyright world where anyone can publish the same thing for profit (like some website full of ads) immediately after the original publisher.
Sure they won't, but that world is purely hypothetical. Even in the age of the internet first-mover advantage is still strong.

The real problem I think is counterfeit goods, but that is still a huge problem even in our current heavy-copyright world. So copyright doesn't really seem to be helping make anyone money or make anyone better products in that case.

>>60202377
I hadn't seen this argument before its proponents in this thread. It's a compelling argument.
I think it comes down to a compromise of sorts. In capitalism, the idea is that harnessing the goodwill of the altruistic is far less effective than converting the greed of everyone into altruism (or a close approximation). So you create an incentive (money) for people to create things that benefit society. That incentive involves using gov't force to secure ip rights, similar to using gov't force to secure property rights.
For me, this is a fair compromise. For others free-market oriented people, it may not be.

>>60202361

and the only way to attack the subsidies

>The entire cost is development

this is simply not true, and I doubt you understand what "development" may actually entail and how IP adds to development costs. As I've stated before I've worked in the medical tech industry and most of the costs come from a good or service passing through a gauntlet of different companies, like a multi-corporate assembly line, a company that has patented chemical process X, who hands it off to company that has patented chemical process Y, who consults a legal team who consults with insurance consulting service through a CMS with IP registered under Z, etc etc etc and the reason there are multiple companies at all doing this, adding costs, is that THEY HAVE PATENTED THEIR PROCESS FOR DOING SO, that added cost gets trapped their because the entire basis of their contribution as an individual company rather is their IP. Office workers need to keep their seat warm filling out excel spreadsheets, HR doing their thing, and legal teams get paid: this is where costs come from for each entity that processes a good or service.

>>60202377
>it uses the force of government to exclude competitors destroying the notion of a free market.

best phrased as "a threat of violence that creates artificial scarcity"

>>60202499
>It's a compelling argument.
It's a stupid argument because the very point of copyright is to stop people whose only cost is copying. If you open the market up to anyone who can make a copy the creators will stop creating because they now can't justify their costs.

>>60202573

>very point of copyright is to stop people whose only cost is copying.

copyright is used to retain monopolies and make a living for IP lawyers, if you create artificial monopolies and create artificial costs, competitors are barred from entry for making cheaper and better equivalents, and now everything is shittier and more expensive

>>60202573
Have you ever heard the term "starving artist?" Justifying costs is not anywhere close to being the only motivation people have to create.

And even if it was: why is it a bad thing if they did stop creating? Wouldn't it make more economic sense if the people who couldn't justify their costs stopped doing things that were net economic losses, instead of relying on the government to intentionally restrict the market in order to keep them in business?

>>60202634
>Wouldn't it be better
To live in a mud hut? No.

You're reaping the rewards of a system of patents and copyrights.

>>60202680

>You're reaping the rewards of a system of patents and copyrights.

ah the ol' "humans never invented anything before intellectual property legislation" argument

should Calculus be patented? what about the General Theory of Relativity? What about Maxwell's Law or Quantum Mechanics?

>>60202680
>To live in a mud hut
What?

>You're reaping the rewards of a system of patents and copyrights.
No. You don't know how I live.

>>60202713
We invented mud huts. Still in use in the parts of the world that don't have intellectual property protections. Coincidence?

>>60202680

considering I pay taxes that subsidize the corporations that own those patents without a lick of return on investment, I'd say I ain't, but IP lawyers sure are

>>60202752
You have no idea what you're talking about.

>>60202778

No you don't and you can't even argue your position shill.

>>60202745
Ok. You try going to one of those parts of the world and tell them that they should attack other people who copy their mud hut designs. Because I'm sure another reason to attack each other is exactly what they need.

>>60202503
What I meant was that the entire cost of creating a drug is development, meaning all the research, all the ip's required, etc. Producing the chemicals and making a powder is usually cheap. So even if the last company in the chain isn't responsible for much of the cost directly, they would still be paying the previous companies for use of their ip's right? So I guess by "development cost" I mean the cost that the last company spent in total to bring the product to market, their own research, plus money used to acquire other research.
I guess, the way you described it, actually makes it more likely for their to be competition though right? If a company creates only a chemical process X, and sells it to multiple people, the process can be sold for less than it cost to develop. Then many companies can use process X for a smaller fee than it cost to develop, to make process XY, which can then be sold at less cost than development, while still making profit. And so on, until the at the end, there should be many companies, selling the combination of XYZABC process created drug fuckmyshitupfamathol at only the cost to acquire the ip's, rather than to develop them all. which reduces end development costs, while spreading possible end of chain developers.
And I get your point about all the added costs of legal teams to protect ip rights, which is unfortunate.

so freetards hate copyright but then get mad if someone uses their code in closed source projects?

doesnt make sense

>>60202838
cont:
I'm sure there are plenty of reasons why this doesn't happen in practice. But I still don't see an incentive to even create process X to begin with if you have to spend a significant amount of money doing so. That being said, I'm not sure that things like chemical processes should be allowed as ip, seems more like a math formula to me. Honestly, the whole pharma sector is maybe a bad arena to be having this debate with anyway, since you could argue that there really isn't any IP involved, it's just research and clinical testing. I'm not sure I feel that finding out whether a certain cell responds in a certain way to a compound is IP. I'm not sure what the answer would be to promoting innovation in this sector would be exactly.

>>60202838
>>60202862

> whole pharma sector is maybe a bad arena to be having this debate with anyway, since you could argue that there really isn't any IP involved, it's just research and clinical testing.

the pharma/med tech industry is almost entirely defined by IP

>>60202838

>I guess, the way you described it, actually makes it more likely for their to be competition though right? If a company creates only a chemical process X, and sells it to multiple people, the process can be sold for less than it cost to develop.

this doesn't happen because people enjoy monopolies on both IP and the human capital working in the field of that IP

>>60202861
Yes actually. Copyleft exists to combat abuse by proprietary companies, but if copyright was weakened then there would be significantly less incentive for them to be secretive about their code.

File: nairobimg3.jpg (672KB, 1920x960px) Image search: [Google]

672KB, 1920x960px

>>60202801
"You should respect intellectual property."

Voila.

>>60202942

everything you're looking at existed in form before IP enforcement which didn't ramp up until the 80s and 90s

>>60202955
It existed in the West, where the technology was invented.

>>60202968

Yeah, invented before IP enforcement and outside of it. Isaac Newton didn't patent calculus or gravity, the inventors of skyscrapers didn't patent skyscrapers.

Abolishing copyright simply isn't feasible

A company that took all news, all television shows and entertainment and just put them on their own service to make them available for everyone at a cheap price would create a monopoly and kill all producers of that content.

The article points out how authors in the past have made money by selling their book to publishers at a lump sum fee. Great, so the author gets money but what publisher would buy something to distribute if someone else could just copy it and distribute the exact same product without paying for it?

That's retarded. It simply will not work.

>>60202942
>"You should respect intellectual property."
>"Why?"

>>60202980
You don't understand how patents work.

>>60202987
>A company that took all news, all television shows and entertainment and just put them on their own service to make them available for everyone at a cheap price would create a monopoly and kill all producers of that content.

No it wouldn't. Nothing would stop other companies from doing it and trying to bring prices even lower. This is called a market and it naturally resists monopolies, but you wouldn't know what that is because you're used to thinking from this perpetual monopoly state that the economy is currently in.

>>60203009

Having worked with employers to patent technology myself, yes I do.

>>60202933
After discussing this at length, I think maybe the problem with pharma is precisely because they are allowed to exercise ip rights over chemistry formulas and clinical trials, when I don't think that should be considered ip. As was said before, you can't copyright math formula, why a chemistry one? So in this sense I agree about ip laws. But I think in other sectors where you can't copyright 'process x' like the process of combining cotton and polyester, and charging anyone who wants to make a tshirt for your 'ip', ip laws are still valid. Or, more accurately, I think IP laws are valid and just if the definition of IP is reasonable. But it is an interesting distinction between the IP of a pill vs the IP of a song, for instance.

>>60203025
>ip laws are still valid

literally every good and service is simply the combination of interacting components like a chemical process, and this is the problem with your stance on this

Without copyrights we might see a lot more businesses showing movies aside from traditional theaters. Probably every moderately sized bar would have a cheap projector and screen setup running movies. There would probably be a huge resurgence in local radio stations as well because every licensed station could just run the music they want to run without record labels permission first. Bars could air sports games without worrying about permission also.

>>60201246
If you were to make an exact replica of my kidney without damaging the original then who cares

>>60199231
General public won't lose anything if this outdated concept is abolished, but big tech and governments are interested in keeping it up.

>>60203021
Apparently not if you don't think patented inventions related to mining, smelting, transportation, and construction have anything to do with skyscrapers.

>>60203020
Eventually it's going to get to the point that these companies are offering such small prices for subscription that they're barely making enough to keep servers running. Why would anybody put in the work to try and rival that just for minimal profit? It makes zero sense.

This is a fucking awful example of the market since these people are just taking other people's work and benefiting from it. Competition does nothing here except eliminate any possibility of the creators being paid for their work. It benefits the consumer until those creators stop creating.

>>60203021
Let me talk to them and explain why they shouldn't take advice from a fucking retard that thinks you can patent math or skyscrapers.

You don't understand the first thing about patents, you retard.

>>60199231
It would only hurt the big interests.

>>60203173
Yes, the biggest interest: The People's.
It's why we invented copyright.

>>60203131
The general public are a bunch of moronic and useless consumers.

>>60203160
>fucking retard that thinks you can patent math or skyscrapers.

I was making a point about progress

>You don't understand the first thing about patents

I was consulted for patents on a GIS device and medical devices, so I think I do.

>Eventually it's going to get to the point that these companies are offering such small prices for subscription that they're barely making enough to keep servers running. Why would anybody put in the work to try and rival that just for minimal profit? It makes zero sense.

people run their own distributed servers for free all the time, an example of this is the blockchain, which is not patented

>>60203073
I disagree. If I write a song, it's just a song, in and of itself. As long as I didn't plagiarize the lyrics or music. Same with software. I created software that does some function. You are free to also create software that does the same function, but you are not free to just copy mine the exact same way line for line and sell it as yours. You have to at least take the effort to design it yourself.
Like computers for instance. I wouldn't say the idea of a computer is IP. But I would say that a company's specific implementation of a microprocessor is their IP. If they bought the rights to use other IP to create some of that chip's architecture, then so be it. Other people are free to make their own microchips that do the same things, but they can't steal the exact design that company used to make their chip.

I think that a combination of ip's to create a larger ip is fine, each person is free to sell the rights to use their ip in other products, and all are compensated. I just think the definition of IP is the issue. If you create something unique but reproducable, you should have the right to your unique implementation. If you discovered a formula, that is not an implementation, it's a process.

Another insight. I created a program that does a specific process. I don't think i should have the "right" to that process, and it's not anything new I've created to begin with. But my specific implementation of it is my own. And I think if you want to copy my program's process(some calculations) and implement your own program that does that same process, that's fine, but to simply re-sell my implementation is unfair.

>>60203190
Retarded autists from /g/ are general public as well in this case, I'm talking about people who doesn't profit from copyright enforcement.

>>60203160
>Eventually it's going to get to the point that these companies are offering such small prices for subscription that they're barely making enough to keep servers running.
Good. Low prices for customers means the market was successful, from there they can go to develop new products to compete on other fronts, or they can not compete and they can go out of business.

>Why would anybody put in the work to try and rival that just for minimal profit?
Because there is demand.

> Competition does nothing here except eliminate any possibility of the creators being paid for their work. It benefits the consumer until those creators stop creating.
No. The creators still can get paid for their work, just they have to compete in the market just like everyone else.

Please go and take an economics course before you go and shitpost here about this. This stuff isn't hard to understand.

>>60203223
>If companies would only lose money, it would work!
The point of companies is to make money. Losing money is a hobby, and you can't live on that.

>>60203295
>Because there is demand.
I want all your money. Send it to me.

>>60203266

>I created software that does some function

software is math, so you want to patent math

>If I write a song, it's just a song, in and of itself.

you use chords, scales, harmonies, rhythms, voicings, tones, it may sound similar to something else because you unconsciously adopted those patterns, thousands of music industry lawsuits have been created over this which society as a whole has wasted resources over

>But I would say that a company's specific implementation of a microprocessor is their IP

the efficiency of a computer's implementation is based on math and physics, so again, you'd be patenting math

>>60203298

where did you extrapolate this from what I was talking about

>>60200163
If copyright was abolished, I could take all of your ideas, profit from them, and develop them in a direction that makes you feel disgusted but you are unable to do anything about it because people like it better than your own version, thus proving your original version was shit, and had to be improved by collaboration between people.

>>60203295
wait, so if I create a 'tv' show, and spent money for camera's actors etc.. and I try to sell it on my website for 1$ per episode, hoping to sell it to millions and make a small profit. You're saying it's only fair that I "compete" with sites that are giving away everyone's tv shows for free and making money off of ad revenue?

>>60203354
You put forth shouldering an expense with no income as a business model.

>>60203223
You were making a retarded point because you don't know how patents work. Do you think I can patent you? I'm just making a point about progress (it's too smart for you)

>>60203295
The creators can not profit from their work. If they distribute their content for a price but it can be viewed for free then they don't profit. If they sell it to a publisher then they face the same problem. Everyone in the chain has this problem.

A solution for movies though would be to only show them in theatres. Or, they could enforce DRM into every distributed film that takes control of your computer to ensure no replication. Or they could make you sign a contract that says you can't copy or redistribute this media.... Hmmmm.... Sounds familiar....

What a great, progressive future for entertainment.

>>60203266
Well hold on a second here. You appear to be suffering from an extreme oversimplification. Programs themselves cannot be sold. You can sell the copyrights to a program, you can sell a license to do certain things with the program, you can sell a disk with the program on it, but you can't actually sell it, because the whole concept of a program is that it's just an intangible abstract series of numbers. Which one of these options were you referring to?

>>60203354
I specifically said I didn't think I should have a right to the process in my program, just my specific implementation of it. Basically, you can reproduce, just don't fucking copy the whole thing exactly. Like, create your own GUI, write your own functions, even if the outcome is exactly the same.

I would say that chords, etc.. are more like musical functions, rather than specific implementations of musical functions, like an entire song, words mixed with music in a set order.

>>60203323
Ok, sell me a product that is valuable to me and I will.

>>60203384
I think he will tell you to take a course in economics.

Because, apparently, economists are screaming at the world to remove copyright for all the benefits.

>>60203381

>If copyright was abolished, I could take all of your ideas, profit from them, and develop them in a direction that makes you feel disgusted but you are unable to do anything about it because people like it better than your own version, thus proving your original version was shit, and had to be improved by collaboration between people.

this happens with IP anyway

>>60203391

I said no such thing, there are many companies that provide services that do not involve IP

>>60203406

>What a great, progressive future for entertainment.

because good entertainment didn't existed before IP law of course


>just my specific implementation of it

by specific you mean using someone elses programming language? even your specification is emergent from mathematical structures of another mathematical structure

>>60203425

>just my specific implementation of it

by specific you mean using someone elses programming language? even your specification is emergent from mathematical structures of another mathematical structure

a summation process written in the specific implementation of C a certain way is still math

>>60203428
No. You have to send me your money or you're violating my freedom.

>>60203441
Because the internet and computers existed before IP law?

>>60203509

TCP/IP and the von neumann/harvard architectures are not patented, and IP enforcement wasn't universally prevalent until the 1980s/90s, so yes.

You do realize that a major portion of these issues have to do with noncommercial copyright laws, right?

The commercial side of copyright is as fair as it was back then, but the noncommercial side is a completely different and twisted story.

>>60203407
you are correct. I was referring to selling a license to use the program. And just for the record, my program I released as open source, it's just that if I had created something really useful, like say, an office suite that was better than microsoft's, I would like to be able to sell the usage license, free from someone else selling the usage license for .01$ and making a profit. Not that I wish to prevent someone else from making an office suite, or even incorporating my ideas, just that I should have the rights to my own implementation.

Also, I feel it is necessary to say, that the intention of copyright law, is to provide some level of incentive to produce things which cost time/money, which is hard to otherwise create. Again, even though it has downsides, the profit motive is a core principal of capitalism, used to promote the highest levels of innovation. You could argue that things would still be produced, but certainly less people are interested in doing so, than would be when money is involved. As I previously put it "harnessing the goodwill of the altruistic is far less effective than converting the greed of everyone into altruism (or a close approximation)"

>>60203428
So you're not going to work for my benefit for free?
Now you understand why copyright exists.

>>60203384
Yes, it is. This is called competition. In the example you gave, if the ad-supported model ends up being more popular then you should consider switching to it, or you should develop a new product, because otherwise you risk going out of business.

>>60203406
> If they distribute their content for a price but it can be viewed for free then they don't profit. If they sell it to a publisher then they face the same problem. Everyone in the chain has this problem.
Yes, that is a good problem to have. Markets reaching peak efficiency and profit drying up means technological progress is working. If they want to continue making profit they can change their business model or they can find a new product to make. But they shouldn't try and reverse the course of progress because they are unable or unwilling to do this.

>>60203384
That's not a profitable business venture in a society without copyright. The government shouldn't prop up bad business plans just because the industry is toolazy to figure out a new one. The government should get out of the way and let us figure out how to build a better, more modern content industry that doesn't rely on copyright.

Look at app stores, YouTube, or Run the Jewels. They are are making tons of money by giving away free copies of their content and do not require the government to protect them with taxpayer dollars or the stifling of competitive economic activity.

>>60203531
You obviously missed the point because you're stupid. Sharing of today due to internet and computers is unparalleled with any time in the past.

You're actually arguing that patent laws have existed for hundreds of years but weren't enforced until the last 30? You know that's not true.

Are you trying to argue that they weren't enforced in shithole 3rd world countries that had no industry?

>>60203547

> is to provide some level of incentive to produce things which cost time/money,

the majority of the cost involved in these things is increasingly the ability of people to access the information necessary to produce it, and structural costs which come from processes and infrastructure defined by IP problems

>>60203479
>>60203555

I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

>>60203561
Your opinion of progress is progressing for the sake of progress. Why?

If movies only show in theatres then this is progress? Sounds like literally the opposite.

>>60202449
>This is a nonsense analogy and a misunderstanding of economics. Capital does not convey a right to profit, it conveys a right to production.
That doesn't explain how it was a nonsense analogy. I said nothing about the right to profit. What I stated was about protecting one's rights to the potential profit from what one has produced instead of investing capital and labor into producing something that every Harry, Dick, and Tom can leech off within seconds of publication despite not putting any labor or capital into its production.

>Arguing for copyright on principle is saying that other people do not have the right to production using their own property because someone else thought of the specific idea first.
How does that make any sense to you? How does a copyrighted book or computer game mean that "other people do not have the right to production using their own property because someone else thought of the specific idea first"? They are free to make their own book or computer game, perhaps even something that is quite similar to the one already produced.

>>60203606

>You're actually arguing that patent laws have existed for hundreds of years but weren't enforced until the last 30? You know that's not true.

relatively speaking its very true, it was very easy in the early 20th century to bootleg anything without getting found out, digitization allowed to companies to check whether someone around the world was reusing text or information that they compiled

>Sharing of today due to internet and computers is unparalleled with any time in the past.

I didn't argue against that at all.

>Are you trying to argue that they weren't enforced in shithole 3rd world countries that had no industry?

Which orifice are you pulling this ramdom argument out of?

>>60203636
Don't misrepresent me. All I'm doing is explaining how a capitalist economy works. While I do think copyright should be severely weakened, there are obviously many other things that need to be in place in order to make hyper-competitive markets work properly. In particular, there already needs to be a steady flow of capital coming from outside the market once it starts, which is difficult.

>If movies only show in theatres then this is progress?
This is not what would happen. Theatres are largely inefficient.

>/g/ actually discusses something with clear thoughts and arguments to provide
Is this a miracle

>>60203634
>We should abolish copyright! Don't you understand that people will just work for free?
>Well I'M not going to work for free!

Ahhh... white people.

>>60203570
whoa I never endorsed subsidizing anyone.

>>60203561
Come on now. You're missing the point. I wasn't trying to compare ad-based with pay-per models. I should develop a new product? The "competition" didn't even develop a product, they stole mine and marketed it. So if I create a show, and give it away free with ads, and someone else decides to do the same, cutting into my revenue, that I should develop a new business model? Why shouldn't the second guy develop his own content and host his own shows? Surely I've wandered into the troll segment of this discussion. I'm not talking about competing distribution models, I'm talking about selling something you didn't create.

And as far as the software analogy is concerned, those languages are free for anyone to use, and like i said, people are free to create their own implementation of the same functions. So i create a calculator of sorts, others are free to create the same calculator, in the same way, but they shouldn't be able to simply make a copy of mine and sell it. I'm not arguing that my processes should be protected, just the end product as a whole. Like with the office suite analogy. Nothing stops someone from making an editor that does the same exact things as microsoft, using the same languages and libraries, but you have to create your own, not just copy the binaries and sell it yourself.

>>60203609
I argue that information/research shouldn't be considered ip, and a lot of these problems wouldn't exist. And there are still lots of things which cost a lot that have no costs associated with ip.

>>60203731

>but they shouldn't be able to simply make a copy of mine and sell it.

Why not? What gave you the right to copy a calculator in a language you didn't invent and claim it as your own?

>>60203780

Thanks to the wonderful enlightenment physics provides, everything is information.

>>60203662
Enforcement of all laws is greater now than ever. It's a product of technological progression.

The Unabomber talks about this. He cites how feudal Europe may have had harsher regulations but they were more free as the enforce a couldn't enforce.

And you're arguing about the success of lack of IP protection before computers and internet. It's entirey different as never before has there ever been the possibility of just copying someone else's product and redistributing it.

>>60203662
Your problem is that you say businesses having to change business model is a good thing for the sake of it instead of regulation.

What alternatives would movie makers have to make money without copyright beyond never letting the individual gain a copy? What would Netflix do? What actually solutions do you have?

OP's list only applies to the retarded American version of copyright enforcement.

>>60203561
Your idea of competition is ignores the reality large businesses have established networks for spreading the content they take from the filmographer who poured time, money, and effort into his own production. The filmographer CANNOT compete with their predatory business model because he doesn't have the same network and means. The copyright guarantees his labor cannot be exploited by predatory business, and that's precisely what you're talking about with "competition" here, exploitation of others' labor. The only competition that takes place is in distribution. Distribution is not the content. It is more like the competition between companies that deliver packages to people. The reason the people get the package (whatever it may contain) is NOT the distribution system but the content that is distributed.

>>60203642
> What I stated was about protecting one's rights to the potential profit
This is an extremely dangerous line of thought. Once you start telling people they are entitled to make money off of something before it has run its course with the buyers, i.e. the customer that is actually being served, then the market ceases to function.

>investing capital and labor into producing something that every Harry, Dick, and Tom can leech off within seconds of publication despite not putting any labor or capital into its production
Then don't invest in that? I don't see what the problem here is.

>They are free to make their own book or computer game, perhaps even something that is quite similar to the one already produced.
But if they want to improve on someone else's book or computer game, then they are not allowed to. Why? To protect the original author? From what? Having to suffer and look for another job just like the majority of people in the world have to do regularly? I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing what it is you want out of this.

>>60203803
because I created it. If someone else wants to create their own exact same thing then they're free to do so. I realize it's splitting hairs when it comes to something trivial like a simple program, but I think the office suite software is a better example. You can recreate all you want, but you can't clone the entirety. At this point, we're not going to have any more productive discussion, but we have at least arrived at the core of the contention, which is the goal of argument and reason.
Thank you /g/, shit this thread has wasted a lot of my time.

>>60199231
>What if copyright were abolished?
Well there wouldnt be copyright you dummy

>>60203823

>you say businesses having to change business model is a good thing for the sake of it

removing artificial scarcity isn't "for the sake of it"

>What alternatives would movie makers have to make money without copyright beyond never letting the individual gain a copy?

crowdfunding and subscription based models, you can find movie and tv shows on the internet for free, but people pay for netflix because they provide it first and people enjoy funding the artists they want to see more of, and artists no one wants to see more of should not get paid

>>60203876

you didn't invent calculators or C++, you changed some configurations on your computer through C++ to emulate a calculator, and the problem with IP even if you think you did create it is that corporations take your mentality and then sue people who, not even stealing the binaries, make their own implementations

>>60203858
>don't see what the problem is here
The entire purpose of copyright is to promote innovation. you're attitude of "don't invest in that" is exactly what people would say when deciding to invest money into a product for the common good in many cases. So we have these laws so people will want to cure cancer, create the automobile, etc.. Sure some people will be philanthropic and still want to do those things, but not nearly as many as would want to do so with a profit motive.

And what do we gain if we keep it?

We let society exist

>>60203731
>The "competition" didn't even develop a product, they stole mine and marketed it.
Yes, they did. Better distribution is a product. If they are cutting into your revenue because they had better marketing, then you should improve your marketing. This is called competition. You need to play the game otherwise you'll get run out of business. Is it fair? No it's not, but it's not supposed to be. It's supposed to bring the best products to customers at the best prices.

>>60203855
Yes, and those huge established networks and predatory business practices are caused by ridiculous copyright laws, among other things. If the market was actually fair, they wouldn't be a problem. Network effects are easily broken when a competitor is able to offer a better service at a lower price, causing people to take their money elsewhere. Predatory business practices don't happen when businesses are properly focused on serving the customer.

>>60203942
>but not nearly as many as would want to do so with a profit motive.

most profits are from services not licensing

>The entire purpose of copyright is to promote innovation

"the entire purpose of artificial scarcity and lack of information enforced through threat of violence is to promote abundance and increase information"

this doesn't make any sense

>>60203858
So basically you want a world where there should be no protection against the exploitation of others' labor. If you can't protect your own labor from predatory companies, you deserve to be exploited, it seems.

>Once you start telling people they are entitled to make money off of something before it has run its course with the buyers
Of course people are entitled to make money off something they put time and effort in to create. That doesn't mean they will make money off it. They might well lose money (sales not covering costs), but they are certainly entitled to be the one that makes money off it if anyone.

>>60203942
If you think those problems are universally relevant, and you think that throwing money at them is going to fix them, then there are many groups you can lobby to fund them. But copyright is failing at promoting innovation. In fact in many cases, it is actively hurting it.

>>60204036

this already currently happens because corporations have better legal teams than individuals

>>60203975
I'm all about the free market. But I'm not talking about competing distribution models. I'm talking about the product itself. If netflix were allowed to host any show they wished wihout paying, no one would produce shows. Who would buy your show if they could watch it for free on netflix? why would netflix pay you if they don't have to? then netflix wouldn't have any shows to host, and their business would cease. Unless they waned to make their own shows, which I could then steal and give away, and so they wouldn't make them either. The only shows you'd have would be made by people with low budgets who do it for the artistic value.

>>60203975
Not him, but I own a bunch of websites.

>If they are cutting into your revenue because they had better marketing, then you should improve your marketing.
>It's supposed to bring the best products to customers at the best prices.
I do a lot of marketing online. And the person who throws the most money at it gets the best results. If you want to be on top of Google you literally have to bribe other website owners to talk about you. Small business literally can't compete on the internet.

The same goes for content creation. Google has a product that automatically generates content based on what other websites have written online. Imagine if they could literally take over the information. Then they would instantly chase all their competitors off the internet.

>create a nice thing
>Pajeet McRajesh steals your idea, claims all credit, and makes a profiting empire out of it

This is why we need copyright. Invasive privacy measures are incidental to its enforcement, among other corporatist bullshit that plagues the law books today.

You can't just magically make it disappear so you can live in a liberal paradise full of neckbeards, old ThinkPads, and pure communism that works. There's going to be consequences, opposition, and total chaos.

>>60204036
>So basically you want a world where there should be no protection against the exploitation of others' labor. If you can't protect your own labor from predatory companies, you deserve to be exploited, it seems.
No. I want a fair market where businesses can compete effectively. Copyright does not protect against exploitation of labor, it makes it worse.

> but they are certainly entitled to be the one that makes money off it if anyone
This would be true if we were talking about labor, but we aren't. Once you try and conflate labor with "the content of one's ideas" is where you start to get into dangerous territory. This is consequently another reason why copyright is fucked up.

>>60199691
Copyright is literally just a de facto emergent property of contracts.
I sell you a piece of intellectual property (that only I have access to, because I created it) with the contractual obligation that you not distribute it
without my permission or under some condition.
If you violate this contract, you violate the NAP, and therefore I can use force to defend my property and the contract you agreed to.
Modern copyright law is actually extremely tame compared to what the free market would have in store for us.

>>60204067

if you want to see artists produce content you like, pay them yourself, simple as that, no need for expensive legislation and legal teams, if an artist's fans don't think the artist is good enough to be funded, then they probably aren't that great anyway, but don't get taxpayer money involved in enforcing that on my behalf

>>60204103

Pajeet already does this, but with patent trolling, its the complete reverse

>>60204132
>if you want to see artists produce content you like, pay them yourself
Artists can come up with things we don't even know we wanted. That's why it's called "art" and not "manufacturing."

>>60203975
>predatory business practices are caused by ridiculous copyright laws, among other things
I don't buy it's because of copyright laws. There is no doubt copyright laws are abused by companies, but predatory business practices arise when nothing reigns them in. You need regulation and legislation to protect the rights of the little guy from being exploited and ravaged by the more powerful essentially amoral actors.

>>60204159

>Artists can come up with things we don't even know we wanted. That's why it's called "art" and not "manufacturing."
>not "manufacturing"

nonsense, marketers come up with new things you didn't think you know you wanted all the time

>>60204125
If you have ever been out in the business world, you'll have found that there are plenty of completely ridiculous contracts out there that businesses will gladly pressure you into signing. Copyright law isn't stopping this from happening.

>>60204069
Yep, google sucks and is a monopoly. Personally, I attribute it to their aggressive secrecy and insistence on keeping their search algorithms proprietary.

>>60204125
This. If the concept of copyright goes away then why would private organisations not force every user to sign a contract to not redistribute their work?

Copyright simplifies this.

>>60204132
I just don't think this works in practice. How would someone expect to get funded to begin with? So I should create something, in the hopes that it's good enough that people will support me en masse, even though I know that hardly anyone would bother donating to me if my work was available for free. I mean, maybe if you got people really interested and threatened to stop production unless you get donations, but you would be operating at a giant loss on the hope that eventually, someone might decide to pay you, even though they don't have to?

This whole school of thought strikes me as mixing capitalism with the flawed assumptions of the goodwill of humanity of socialism.
free markets work because it harnesses the innate self serving nature of individuals to produce good.

>>60204191
Yes businesses do have ridiculous contracts. Many of which are interpreted as contracts of adhesion.
In a pure free market, courts cannot set standards as to what stipulations in a contract are "reasonable" or "coercive"
Copyright is literally a standard that the Legislatures created for courts to apply to this specific contractual case, to prevent excessively coercive contracts while reasonably protecting the production of the intellectual property.

>>60200163
You just described 4chan.

Or is this all a socialist trick:
sidestep arguing against property rights, to arguing against IP rights, preventing the accumulation of private property at all?
:)

>>60204197
>why would private organisations not force every user to sign a contract to not redistribute their work

plumbers, after telling me whats wrong with my pipes, don't make me sign a contract to not tell other people how to fix a pipe, it's common courtesy and yet plumbers still make a good living because they provide quality service

the hyperagressive contract enforcement future you're envisioning is a ancap fantasy that would end logically in everyone write Ethereum scripts for each and every individual encounter or exchange in society and its a fantasy concern

>>60204224

again, if you want artists to be funded, fund them yourself, but don't get my taxpayer dime involved in enforcing legislation regarding that because it's not fair to people who don't care about your artist

>>60204179
They can't make them.
Thank you for hitting on one of the major failings of the front-loaded system, though: being scammed for vaporware.

Stallman's view on the matter is actually quite balanced.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.en.html

Personally I'm a fan of crowdfunding. For general media I'm also not against having a general copyright tax where you have *have* to pay a certain amount (progressive based on income) but you can optionally choose what artists/productions you fund (so that the government doesn't decide for you based on estimated popularity); your media player app could keep track of what you enjoyed and generate the productions list automatically. (With crypto it should be possible to achieve this without disclosing who enjoyed what media.)

>>60204124
>Once you try and conflate labor with "the content of one's ideas" is where you start to get into dangerous territory.
Huh? If I research and write a film script, film it, and edit it, there's a hell of a lot of labor involved in it. How is this labor imaginary to you? Just because the film isn't a house doesn't mean it took no labor to construct it. Likewise with many different types of content that carry a copyright. Often the creator puts the labor in before any earnings can even be made which is all the more reason to protect the work with copyright.

>>60204191
I should also add that, for example, the GPL is a License Agreement.
It's literally a fucking contract.
It's not like Copyright is something fancy, it is a fucking contract, with certain limitations to make shit reasonable.

When people talk about copyright, they usually refer to the exclusive publishing rights of a work.
And to a lesser extend the license to use a work.

>>60204197
Why make it easier for them to stifle redistribution?

>>60204245
The courts already can't do that, which is why it happens on a case basis, just like everything else in our justice system. I actually do think this specific contractual case is important, but I don't think it is reasonably protecting the production of intellectual property. In particular, new forms of intellectual property are arising so quickly that it is not possible for them regulate them fast enough. So you end up with older contract systems that are stagnant and caught up in legal quagmire, while everyone else moves forward.

>>60204301
you act like taxpayer money is actually spent enforcing copyright laws, when the money is already spent enforcing the laws in general. adding one more law to the books doesn't really cost anything. we already have to have the courts, the lawyers, judges and police. people pay their own court costs when they file a suit.
it's fair because it protects all artists equally, and doesn't incur additional cost each time a work is copyrighted. you act like if i copright a song, that costs you money that you're not otherwise paying.

>>60201055
The margins are high because they are low volume. How many people have psoriasis? I didn't even know what that was until I looked it up. Everyone needs to pay (through taxes as well as insurance premiums) to help those poor bastards who are afflicted. Not because it is right, but because it is expedient. The social contract only works when people have something to lose. If you let people suffer with nothing to lose, that goes out the window. It's easier and ultimately cheaper to subsidize the scum of humanity than go to war with them.

>>60204311
>I'm a fan of crowdfunding.
It's one of the worst ways to get work out of people. Instead of profits being commensurate with performance, profits are maximized by doing the least amount of work possible.

>Work will probably net me $100k, with a chance for 500k if I work really hard.
>work really hard to get every dime over $100k that I can.
>the market determines what the result is worth, and consumers only have to pay that

>crowdfund pays me $100k.
>Do I do $100k worth of work? No, because the less I put into it, the more I make per unit effort.
>end result cost $100k to the consumer no matter how shitty the result

>>60200163
so? that's a good thing

there's nothing in the world that is closed source, except software

every person every creator can take apart literally anything and learn from it..
you think when someone invented a vehicle or a house they were mad when others made their creations better?

>>60204319
>It's literally a fucking contract.
Not necessarily. Apparently this is only true in some jurisdictions.

>>60204313
Yes, and you can negotiate to get paid up front for that labor, or you can try and use it as leverage in getting an investment. But you can't take the abstract product that was produced by it and say that it is the same thing, because it isn't. If you can't get paid for the labor then that's it, your costs are sunk and you need to go get another job. Shit happens.

>>60204370

>you act like taxpayer money is actually spent enforcing copyright laws

entire offices, institutions, and infrastructure is paid for by taxpayers just for just this, yes and its expensive and could be spent on other things

>when the money is already spent enforcing the laws in general

surveillance infrastructure has to be built on the taxpayers back to enforce digital rights management enforcement, which brings up the other problem of enforcement of IP which is that it requires totalitarianism to completely enforce

>people pay their own court costs when they file a suit.

taxpayer money is spent anytime anything legal ever happens, not even including the meta-costs of accounting and bookkeeping on this shit

>>60204398

if you want artists to be paid, then pay them yourself, but don't use my tax dollars to enforce your emotional attachments

>>60204398
With naive crowdfunding (as performed today) your objection is on point. But other possibilities exist, such as releasing the funds in stages as the project progresses, and/or having a trusted third party (escrow agent) check project progression. Not unlike the checks producers perform on the productions they fund today.

This kind of scam would also only work once, and would result in everyone involves gaining poor reputations.

>>60204416
literally no one would pay for their labor if they couldn't sell the end product
>>60204420
surveillance is not necessary for this. same way it's not necessary for other convictions. You file a suit, gather evidence, and make your case. You don't have to have already spied on someone to accuse them of wrongdoing.

>>60204416
The legal interpretation of a contract in a pure free market isn't the truth.
If you believe that humans have a natural right to form contracts with each other, unrestricted, then you believe that there could be copyright equivalent contracts that are extremely restrictive.
Obviously, looking a the Ancap interpretation is extreme and absurd, but it does show that copyright is a natural right. With some sane restrictions on how ridiculous you can make your contracts, and bam you have sane copyright and intellectual property.
Intellectual property is just as valid as any other form of property.

>>60204469
Ah, so instead of copyright, which is just "don't make copies of stuff that isn't yours," we try to enslave the creators to pre-payment in a system that now has no way to place an actual value on the end result.

>>60204485

as with any enforcement of law, businesses are created on infrastructure for it, and it becomes increasingly hard to remove the surveillance aspect because peoples jobs depend on it

>surveillance is not necessary for this
>You file a suit, gather evidence, and make your case

Evidence is increasingly easier to fabricate, for example chat logs or screenshots, physical evidence can be 3d printed or manufactured, video can be simulated and faces can be altered. At some point it will be easy to fabricate genetic evidence. Maintaining "justice" in this scenario requires surveillance, at which point /nobody/ owns any private or personal property, intellectual or otherwise.

>>60204511
>Ah, so instead of copyright, which is just "don't make copies of stuff that isn't yours," we try to enslave the creators to pre-payment in a system that now has no way to place an actual value on the end result.
Value arises from human labour. To spell it out, salaries plus material costs.

>>60204301
PLUMBERS PROVIDE A SERVICE NOT A PRODUCT

SERVICE

Can't serve money or God at the same time. File-sharing should be legal in every parallel.

If we could replicate food out of thin air, only terrible people would want to sell such a device for profit instead of ending world hunger.

This applies to file-sharing. From day one, I have said it's not wrong. People have a stimuli hunger and poorer people can't afford it. File-sharing allows them to continue life content while making low wages and suffering for living.

Meanwhile, men who want to control everything instead of going the way of the dinosaur will conjure up excuses like, the quality of things will go down, they can't find another job and therefore can't put food on the table (but will sue people hard enough to make sure they can't put food on the table), or that the people don't need it, therefore it somehow justifies charging for something that can be done freely indefinitely, aka no resource limit except greedy humans who claim to do things for a cause, but the true reason is money. If it is truly vain, then it serves no purpose for society and warrants no compensation for the time wasted for vanity's sake.

A true artist expresses himself for his self sake, not for other's to see. Those that claim to be as such, but seek other's attention have an agenda. Weather it's ego, money, etc, or all of them. It matters not.

Copyright law being abolished would bring about a true revolution of technology and entertainment. Thus improving the overall condition of the current modern man.

>>60204416
>you can negotiate to get paid up front for that labor
But only if there's a copyright on my work so the company that publishes it can justify the investment in the hope of profit. If they have no control over the finished product, they're not going to invest.

>If you can't get paid for the labor then that's it, your costs are sunk and you need to go get another job.
That's fine by itself. However, in your model someone else is allowed to take what I created, and not just take it but take it within seconds I release a copy they can get their hands on. And they're then allowed to profit off it any way they wish without giving me a penny. You seem to think it's reasonable that I assume all the risks and costs while a predatory company can exploit my efforts with no risk. I disagree.

>>60204570
Growing up, I used to hear one person say this, "Money is the root of all evil." He is right. The reason why everything is shit is for the sake of money.

>>60204545
>Value arises from human labour. To spell it out, salaries plus material costs.
So if you pay a salary of $10 or $1,000,000, you're getting your money's worth either way?

There will be a large initial culling of artists, who cannot adapt to a non-copyright system.

Anyways, better idea: change copyright terms to a decade or two.

>>60204747

if you like artists, and want them to keep making stuff, pay them
if you don't like artists, don't pay them

don't expect me to to pay taxes for IP courts and an unnecessary legal industry to make you feel better about the artists you like

>>60204069
>free market = google
they aren't even comparable
>>60204497
>Ancap interpretation ... does show that copyright is a natural right
[citation needed]
>>60204747
>the poor artists! how will they survive!?
pay them, fucker.

>>60199231
Will only work if you abolish capitalism first.