That happens on November 13, 2014, 7pm. I’ll present Culture vs. Copyright. Am going to speak a little about the book itself, more about a few basic ideas. Hope for some discussion. Will try. Will see. Here is the library add
Well, you need to find it on the page, in Publishers Weekly Select program
Category — Philosophy
The word “trade” has several related meanings. For example, trade of goods and services. That one is a nuclei of specifically free market and generally — of civilization, one of, at least. In order to serve as such: a) trade must be beneficial for both trading parties and consequently, b) these parties have to have respective knowledge regarding traded goods or services. If a) and b) are there an act of trade has an engine in itself and happens sooner or later.
There is another, very specific or better say so-called “trade” — one of copyright. A variant of rationale for it sounds like: While copyright (say original one, an author’s) is in place, the general public suffers because of limited access to the respective work. When copyright expires, the author suffers because of “lost incentives.” That is copyright is a trade of sufferings.
That proofs nothing, of course. I only wonder why it doesn’t sound fishy for a normal ear. How a trade of sufferings may be beneficial just for anybody? Doesn’t it call for little thinking? For it sounds very similar to “trade of insults,” doesn’t it?
What does “Do not” do?
Well, that is hardly obvious . . . for many not for me. We need to do some theory here. An author, say a writer, speaks to someone while writing. Who is that “one?” Regardless many details “one” is defined as “one who understands me (the author).” That might be obvious. Now, I, the author, am telling “the one who understands me” (for who else will value my work so much as to risk money and be sure of return): Do not steal from me! Let’s put two premises together, make syllogism, be honest, state conclusion: that one, who understands me, who values my work most, who believes in it, that one is accused as a thief, bad, unworthy guy. That must be the formal conclusion. And now is next, mine: you, the author, who says “Do not steal from me,” you kill yourself. You will never be the same in terms of creativity. You are finished.
Lost Altos Town Crier, Jun 18, 2014
This is one of questions to come up when discussion about feasibility of IP as such happens. The most common example which bothers my opponents is pharmaceutical research. In this respect it was tempting to title the post “What about ‘Me too’ effect?” Who have read “Strong Medicine” by Arthur Hailey will remember…
I was amazed and even somewhat choked to learn about “Me too” = the full analogy of the “effective plagiarism.”
So what these two are? “Me too” appears when a company comes up with a new medication. Other companies cannot do the same because of patent related issues, so they reverse engineer the medication, change it by non-essential means to the degree that initial manufacturer couldn’t claim patent infringement and sell their modifications.
As I said, it was choking. But I didn’t say it was chokingly pleasant. Yes, pleasant, for I inferred the exactly same effect for the book market (actually, as it appeared lately, I discovered the wheel — just everybody new about it from practice). I call it “effective plagiarism,” which follows a bestseller. Non-original publishers hire pseudo-writers to write something similar to the bestseller but non-essentially different to the degree that copyright infringement cannot be claimed.
Due to these effects “investment argument” does not wash at all. Should I explain or you can do on your own?
“Here I remember, here I don’t”—is a quotation from a Russian comedy “Gentlemen of Luck.” A gang leader points to left and right sides of his head. He tries to explain his fellows why he remembers their names but does not remember where a treasure was hidden. Actually, he is an imposter who wants to find the same . . .
I often recall this when discussion runs into “nature of arts.” Just everyone agrees that “arts are the realm of ultimate freedom” (this is how I like to put it). Reluctantly then they would agree that copyrights restrict said freedom. And it is practically impossible to get the only one honest conclusion from these two premises.
How do people see it?
How do I see it? Copyright as a concept is wrong. And it has never been substantiated. Neither in theory nor in practice. It just exists supported by meaningless speculations for more than 300 years. It is wrong and it is dangerous. There are specifics in the dangers copyright has presented in different times, genres, media, etc. But these specifics do not deny fundamental wrongness of this monster.
So, what about digital age? Why it seems to bring in new challenges regarding copyright (and other kinds of “intellectual property”)? The answer? Digital age just reveals copyright’s abnormality. Digital age does not present specific problems related to authorship and its “protection.” No, digital age does totally different thing: It reveals IP related problems in its specific “digital” ways. As simple as that. They maybe got exacerbated (in order to be seen and misinterpreted) but this not the main issue. The main issue that was exposed is IP monstrosity as such. Conclusion? IP is to be abolished