Comments (10)

• Daniel M. Ryan

  ...and got little more than catcalls for it in the comments section.

  Published: November 23, 2006 10:49 AM

• David C

  Ha, I've said all along that copyrights are closer to Marxisim than to capitalisim simply because they are more like a government regulation that controls how people use information and have nothing to do with property at all. Even more amazing is how he spouts off about how copyrights benefit everybody when clearly they only financially benefit an elete 1% of 1% and riun everyone else - so typical of a Marxist. Like most Marxists, he is an amazing ability to find the truth by saying the opposite. Copyright doesn't promote free circulation of ideas, they don't encourage creative use of sampleing, they ruin small artists, kill opportunity, and are anything but the sole economic foundation of the information age. Hmmm, perhaps the RIAA is trying to rally the anti-establishment crowd? How pathetic.

  PS, notice I said Marxist and not socialist or communist. Sheesh, even the lables are lies, there is absolutely nothing socialbe or community orientated about it.

  Published: November 23, 2006 11:13 AM

• Ben

  Copyright is a vital property right and incentive for the development of technology and other intangible economic goods. Socialism has nothing to do with it. Perhaps Hucknall suggested the link to make it more superficially appealing to Guardian readers, who, judging by the comments, clearly don't consider it "socialistic" enough.

  Published: November 23, 2006 8:33 PM

• Ben

  ...although the first comment is pretty funny. I guess we now know where "Simply Red" comes from.

  Published: November 23, 2006 9:56 PM

• Francisco Torres

  "Copyright is a vital property right and incentive for the development of technology and other intangible economic goods."

  No, it is not. It is not property and it hinders development of new ideas - since any a__hole with a patent can contend a new, competing idea is actually his own.

  Published: November 24, 2006 12:13 AM

• Ben

  That's an issue of patent law, not an issue of copyright. Why would publishing houses, for example, spend millions of dollars recruiting authors, binding publications, advertising, etc, when a single book can be legally photocopied a million times and distributed instead?

  Published: November 24, 2006 4:12 AM

• Matthew

  Ben, authors can have works commisioned like during the renaissance. Publishing houses are becoming a redundant industry. Given todays technology to self-typeset, self-publish, self-advertise, and so on, content creators will have to live off commisioned works and hire their skills out to the global marketplace like most other industries. I fail to see the downside.

  Published: November 24, 2006 8:13 AM

• Matt

  So are you saying that technology has rendered publishing less complex, and therefore we are witnessing disintermediation? I think publishing, advertising, typesetting, etc, are all become more and more specialized and turning into industries in their own right, notwithstanding the fact that someone could do all those things if they so choose.

  Certainly though, works can be commissioned. And there is the possibility of changing business models. For instance, if record companies go away, artists might use promotional companies to spread their music, and earn money from concert performances (as many do now anyway). The music itself is an advertisement for a concert. Movie theaters could become the dominant player in the industry, and commission movies to play in their theaters, which is the way it used to be.

  Businesses are simply using the law to keep their ossified industries from changing.

  Published: November 24, 2006 8:26 AM

• The Solution

  Scrap copyright (and corporations... since I suspect there is a huge overlap in those wanting both done away with - and I believe the basis of both is the same)... and see what of copyright can be resurrected by a system of physical property rights, contractual obligations, and trade secrets... and whatever is resurrected will and must then be accepted by those currently against copyrights (assuming they accept physical property and contracts). So the question is what will survive?

  btw, In some other thread someone asked who a bank would sign a contract with and what would happen if they died (in the case of a 'corporation' that exists by contract alone)... the answer: the contract would specify it.

  There would be a bloody lot of paper work, but the corporation could live without government... as for copyright, much of it could too.
  

  Published: November 24, 2006 2:56 PM

• Enemy of My Enemy

  Brilliant (if obvious) strategy Mr. Tucker... 'the enemy of my enemy...', I'm at least a little sold.

  Believe it or not, I'm actually willing to defend G. W. Bush if only because Hugo Chavez dislikes him.
  

  Published: November 24, 2006 3:00 PM