Die hier archivierte Mail kann, muss sich aber nicht auf den Themenkomplex von Oekonux beziehen.

Insbesondere kann nicht geschlossen werden, dass die hier geäußerten Inhalte etwas mit dem Projekt Oekonux oder irgendeiner TeilnehmerIn zu tun haben.


Message 01469 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: choxT01469 Message: 1/1 L0 [In date index] [In thread index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

[chox] Ernest Adams: The End Of Copyright

URL: http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20051128/adams_01.shtml

Designer's Notebook

The End Of Copyright
By  Ernest Adams

I think we are witnessing the beginning of the end of a major era in world
history. It may take fifty years, it may take a hundred, but the age of
copyright is drawing to a close. I don?t know if this is a good thing or a bad
thing, but it?s inevitable. And I say this as the author of two books and over
75 columns like this one, all copyrighted.

Just 550 years ago this year, a guy named Johann Gutenberg figured out how to
make large quantities of metal type in a hurry. He didn?t invent printing?the
Chinese had been doing that with wooden blocks for centuries?but he did find a
way to make it fast and efficient. Gutenberg changed the world and helped to
bring on the Renaissance.

There were no copyright laws at that point. Before the printing press, books
in Europe were copied by hand, and having someone go to the trouble of copying
your book was about the highest praise an author could get. But with the
printing press, the concept of intellectual property was born. Over the next
two centuries or so, copying books went from being high praise to being a
crime. As printing presses were large and heavy?i.e. difficult to conceal and
difficult to move?it wasn?t all that hard to prosecute the offenders. The
smaller and faster they got, though, the tougher it became.

I?m old enough to remember when photocopiers became commonplace. At first,
there used to be signs in libraries, warning the users against duplicating
copyrighted material?any copyrighted material, ever. But people did it anyway.
They didn?t think they were doing any harm, and they weren?t planning to sell
the copy, they just needed it for their own use.

When enough people feel that it?s OK to do a thing, that thing ceases to be
wrong in their own cultural context. You can complain about moral relativism
all you like, but the facts are inescapable: that?s how people behave. When
the photocopier came along, people simply didn?t think it was wrong to copy a
few pages out of a book, even though it was against the law and the authors
would have preferred that they buy the whole book. So eventually, the Fair Use
doctrine evolved with respect to copyright materials. The law changed. It?s
now OK to photocopy parts of books for educational, non-commercial use. In
effect, the authors and book publishers had to give some ground in the face of
the overwhelming tide of public opinion.

You can see where this is going, can?t you?

On June 27, 2005, the US Supreme Court decided to hold companies that make
file-sharing software responsible for copyright infringements perpetrated by
the software?s users. Everyone expected that they would rule as they did when
Universal City Studios sued Sony over the Betamax in 1984: there were
legitimate uses of the technology, and it shouldn't be held responsible simply
because it can be used unlawfully. Instead, however, they ruled that
file-sharing software actively encourages piracy and the makers should be held

The Supreme Court's action has done the exact opposite of what MGM and the
other content distributors who brought the suit hoped it would. File-sharing
software will become open-source and public domain. File-sharing will continue
to grow ever more popular, but now there will be no one to sue. The Supreme
Court's ruling hasn't even delayed the inevitable; it has actually brought it

There?s no intrinsic reason why someone should continue to get paid for
something long, long after the labor they expended on it is complete.
Architects don?t get paid every time someone steps into one of their
buildings. They?re paid to design the building, and that?s that. The
ostensible reason we have patent and copyright law is, as the US Constitution
says, ?to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.? But travesties
like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act don?t promote the progress of
science; they actively discourage it. So do software and biotechnology
patents. The patent system was intended to allow inventors to profit for a
limited time on particular inventions, not to allow huge technology companies
to put a stranglehold on innovation by patenting every tiny advance they make.

Right now, the music and movie industries are howling and beating their
breasts and doing their best to go after anybody who violates their copyrights
on a large scale. The fury with which they?re doing it is a measure of their
desperation. The Sony rootkit debacle is a perfect example: in an effort to
prevent piracy, they secretly installed dangerous spyware into people?s PCs,
which itself may have been a criminal act. This was about the dumbest
public-relations move since Take-Two lied about the Hot Coffee content, and as
with Take-Two, it will cost them vastly more than they could hope to gain from
it. Did they really think nobody would find out?

The lawsuits, the spyware, the DMCA: these are the death struggles of an
outdated business model. It?s the modern-day equivalent of throwing the
Christians to the lions in an effort to discourage Christianity. It didn?t
work for the ancient Romans and it won?t work now.

Part of the issue is related to the question of how much money it took to
create a copyrighted work in the first place. With books and music, the answer
is simply, ?not that much.? Forget notions of what their rights may be in law;
the idea that a band or an author should be paid millions upon millions over
the next several decades for something that it cost them at most a few
thousand dollars to make, just feels silly to most people. You?ll notice that
it?s the megastars who are fighting the hardest over this in music?Madonna,
Metallica, and so on. They?re the ones who stand to lose the most. But the
smaller, less well-known groups are embracing new business models for
distributing their music. They?re like authors back before the printing press:
?Copy my music and listen to it! Please!?

Movies and video games are more problematic. They take millions to make in the
first place and a good many of them don?t earn back their investment, even
with full copyright protection in place. If we?re going to go on making video
games, the publishers have to find a way to make them pay for themselves. One
approach is an advertising model, although I?m reluctant to say it because I
hate the idea of ads in games. Another is to treat games as a service rather
than a product. With broadband distribution, I think this is increasingly
likely: you won?t ever have a durable copy of a game, you?ll download it every
time you play it. Each instantiation will be unique, personalized for a
particular machine and Internet address; encrypted to discourage hacking; and
expires after a few hours. After that you?ll have to download a new copy.

Yet another model is the donor model: somebody who is known for creating great
work can collect up donations in advance; when he has collected enough to fund
the work, he builds it, and releases the game copyright-free when it?s
finished. The donors will have paid and everyone else gets it for nothing, but
they get it first and perhaps some special recognition for their contribution.
I?d be happy to put down $40 two years in advance for a new Sid Meier game,
particularly if I knew it would be released copyright-free when it came out.
And I bet a lot of other fans of Sid?s work would say the same.

The donors have to trust that the developer will finish it, of course; but
this is effectively how freeware development works now. Somebody makes a name
for themselves with a piece of freeware; they ask for donations; the donations
help to fund further work on a new version. So far it has only been tried on a
small scale, but?as the mobile and casual games are showing us?there?s still
plenty of demand for small scale games in the world.

(A variant of this system, pioneered by cyberspace engineer Crosbie Fitch, is
already in place for music, except that people give pledges rather than
donations. When the musician releases the work, she collects all the pledges
made towards it. See www.quidmusic.com for details. Credit where it?s due: I
first heard about this whole idea from Crosbie.)

In short, there are a heck of a lot of ways to recover the development and
marketing costs of video games besides trying to sell individual physical
copies and prevent their duplication. That system is awkward, wasteful, and
theft-prone. It supports too many middlemen and, like Prohibition, puts money
in the pockets of some very nasty gangsters.

Of course, some alternative distribution models still rely on copyright, and
publishers will still be trying to prevent people from redistributing their
content. But sooner or later that model is doomed. The perceived value of a
thing is inversely proportional to the ease with which it can be duplicated.
If the public simply refuse to acknowledge that copying books or movies or
software is wrong, then in a democracy, it will eventually cease to be wrong.
People elect the legislators, and legislators make the laws.

Does the end of copyright mean that books or music or movies or games will
die? Of course not. The urge to create is too strong in all of us, and
consumers will always be willing to pay for novelty and for excellence. It may
mean that nobody gets mega-wealthy any more. What it does mean for sure is
that the giant dinosaurs that currently dominate the distribution channels had
better learn to adapt or die. There are a lot of fast-moving little mammals in
the underbrush eating the dinosaurs? eggs.

And fifty years from now, kids will be asking, ?What does that © symbol mean
in this old book, Grandpa??

|------------ Christian Siefkes ------------- christian siefkes.net -----|
|    Web: http://www.siefkes.net/     |     Jabber: hc jabber.ccc.de     |
|  Graduate School in Distributed IS:   http://www.wiwi.hu-berlin.de/gkvi/
|------------ OpenPGP Key: http://www.siefkes.net/key.txt (ID: 0x346452D8)
Ich lehne keine multikulturelle Gesellschaft ab, ich lehne ihre Theorie ab,
die von der Gleichberechtigung aller Kulturen ausgeht. Eine Kultur, die
Ehrenmorde und die Unterdrückung der Frau vorsieht, ist nicht gleichwertig
mit einer Kultur, die die Freiheit des Individuums schützt.
	-- Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.de/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de

[English translation]
Thread: choxT01469 Message: 1/1 L0 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 01469 [Homepage] [Navigation]