Pirate Party UK

[Otokogoroshi]

I went to the primary site linked and sadly couldn't find much in the way of good details.

If they want to abolish all copyright laws and patent laws that's dumb.


The few pages I skimmed looked as if people kept arguing in circles.

Anyway I'm out. I don't care for this argument on either side. Both sound pretty darned reasonable.



And Triumph I'm a writer so it clearly touches close to home for me too if they want to abolish copyright laws. A creative person should always have control over their work but sadly in this new digital world we live in that's... difficult.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

And Triumph I'm a writer so it clearly touches close to home for me too if they want to abolish copyright laws. A creative person should always have control over their work but sadly in this new digital world we live in that's... difficult.

I'm a writer as well, or was until I discovered music was more fun. It's the easiest thing in the world to put a story online and have someone copy it. Far easier than copying music and art. Hard times.

 

[Otokogoroshi]

I actually had someone claim I ripped off one of their characters... which was funny because all they had in common was their NAME. Which is super cheesy I realize "Donovan Drake". Come on... Gotta try harder than that









Yes the character was made up when I was 16 but the name stays *pout*

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

I actually had someone claim I ripped off one of their characters... which was funny because all they had in common was their NAME. Which is super cheesy I realize "Donovan Drake". Come on... Gotta try harder than that

Yes the character was made up when I was 16 but the name stays *pout*

Was he a:

raven-headed elf who wore a lot of belts
pale, brooding vampyre with a fondness for sweeping his hair back
mythical species hybrid who uncannily looks human aside from the second anus
part\full time hunter of some or all of the above?

 

[ahdkaw]

I just loved the part where iJoe stated his disagreement to abolishment, and places a quote directly below which states quite clearly that a REFORM of copyright law is required, not abolishment.

Epic Fail.

As regards to the UK Pirate Party website, it's in very early stages, and is still being formulated. These things take time.

If they want to abolish all copyright laws and patent laws that's dumb.

See my point above regarding Copyright Law Reform.

I also love the idea that musicians seem to believe that their time is worth more than any worker in a normal industry. You don't see sheet-metal workers getting royalties every time someone say crosses a bridge made from said metal.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

REFORM of copyright law is required, not abolishment.

And reforming something effectively results in the abolishment of the previous state of matters even if it results in something else. Abolish one thing, create another in its stead. As soon as you reform something, it ceases to be the same thing, so I wouldn't disagree with the usage of "abolish" in this context.

 

[ahdkaw]

Oh, it's a context thing now is it? Maybe you should contextualise better then.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

And reforming something effectively results in the abolishment of the previous state of matters even if it results in something else. Abolish one thing, create another in its stead. As soon as you reform something, it ceases to be the same thing, so I wouldn't disagree with the usage of "abolish" in this context.

The person who started this thread specifically stated "abolish" as the final outcome, not reform. I don't think there's anything wrong with using the word, since our resident "expert" has informed us that it is the correct word.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I went to the primary site linked and sadly couldn't find much in the way of good details.

Don't worry, the details are pretty stupid once you DO find them.

 

[Tsunamie]

Otokogorosh, We are currently getting our web-page to a workable state. We are currently not an official party in the UK.

There are threads on the PPUK manifesto and constitution.

1>For patents we have a very clear message which everyone agrees with. The laws have to go, the do to much damage and cause to many problems with no real benefits.
2>To put you to some easier, the current stance is that we want to reform copyright and shorten the length of the license or power the license has. However I must tell you that there is an internal fight concerning weather or not copyright should be completely abolished. The official stance is reform, the unofficial is that complete abolishment is something we may push for in the future. Hope that clears everything up.
3> writers have more chance of hitting the big time with out copyright. They make near nothing if people don't like the books. However can make a lot of money if a lot of people do like it. Not only that, but the money will mainly go to you as your cutting out the publisher. Between the Ebooks low price and the fact that you can sell merchandise or public appearances and so on. Like music, the real money is in the artist, not the control of the communication between the artist and the public.

I am not going to bullshit you, however you as a writer will not benefit or loss much if copyright reform comes through. Who will benefit are the small time position and movie makers. They will increase the industries turn over 2 fold from estimated projections. Simply because the money made is through the public appearances and advertising. As stated above, the money is always in the artist, it should not be made from trying to limit access to the artist.

I also assume you draw Manga? As an artist you will actually find out that you will make more money from copyright abolishment if you are a Manga artists. A good example is of Naruto and how it spread across the world. The manga is translated into English and published on mangafox.com illegally however what this has meant is that the manga has reached a market it could never reach on it's own. Sales of the books went up in the UK simply because people wanted the official one's.

Note - what kind of information do you need? As we only put the web-site up last week and still editing it. There is a lot of tings to cover and we are currently working throught how to format all the information.

ImprobableJoe - Your posturing astounds me.

I stated that we are currently pushing for reform of copyright and the abolishment of patents. The two are two separate matters.

As explained to Otokogorosh above, there is currently a internal argument over weather reform is satisfactory or if complete abolishment of all current laws is required. Currently the side supporting complete abolishment have got a very strong argument to support there case for it. As I am actually still going through a lot of the white papers so I will give you the current outline of the argument.

1> The financial lose to the industry is a fabrication of the controllers. Studies have shown in several test cases in Asia (notable in China, Japan and India) That the industry actual grows when copyright law is not enforced. The turn over of advertisement increases along with the number of jobs in the creative industry.
2> There are several instances of old job archetypes being lossd (Old life styles or job positions) in the abolishment of copyright. However this rhetoric is not justified since as stated in point 1 there are more jobs in the industry as a result because of the free flow of information and who is allowed to use the information.
3> The freedom of information actually increases a the appearance of a purging mechanism. (the eradication of disinformation). This occurs more rapidly when information source can be viewed or scrutinized. The messenger is no longer the emblem of authenticity. This means the source of the information gains more power and the carrier (distribution chain) no longer has as much power and as a result has less monetary claim.

There are 3 other points however they are more into social gains. You seem to be concerned with the monitray concern so I think I will stick with that. Kind of why I left freespeach out of it in my first reply to you. As free speach is not about the monetary gain but a social gain from allowing it.

So to conclude - the reason I stated that the current position was reform was not a defense. It was not to imply that abolishment is bad. The reason I stated it was to inform you of the current political parties policies.

Since I am one PPUK members who is arguing for total abolishment. I can address every single one of your inaccurate assertions given that I have government papers showing me that what the media companies churn out is a load of shit.

 

[Tsunamie]

Ozymandyus -

1>Actually if you look into the way the money flows in California. You will actually see that there are many limits on how a musician or artist is able to make it big. The only way at the moment to reach complete global notarity is thought one of the big music labels or big producers.

2> The argument is that more money can be made and more jobs are created if copyright laws were abolished and that it would not be limited to specific channels or specific international media corporations. (ie a nations economy is better off instead of specific companies who do deals behind closed doors based on which singer can suck more cock)

Aught3, To answer your statement of drugs companies monopolies using patents. Please feel free to read the study available on the link below.

http://www.piratpartiet.se/an_alternative_to_pharmaceutical_patents

Once you have read the amount of money that.
t is actually subsidized by tax dollars and look at the percentage considered to be profit. You will start to understand the type of abuse the current system goes through

richi1173 -

Fan subbing or other illegal activities accociated to the fan subbing are basically helping that industry. They reached markets the could not have otherwise reached, which is why there is such a low prosecution rate, simple because of one point. The distribution companies are effectively getting free international advertisement and have happily enjoyed rising profits due to the sale of the merchandise affiliated to the anime brand they own.

There are many cases for this in different fields. Photograpgy, visaul media and music.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Further, as pointed out, the people who are advocating for the "Pirate Party" ARE thieves, by definition. They are proud of their thievery, and could only have been more accurate if they have called themselves the "S3elfish and Spoiled Crooks Party." It isn't MY fault that my description is accurate.

Do I have to make another list of all the points you made which are either contradictory or lies?

Your statement about how copyright does not effect free speech?
How piracy harms the media industry?

You have tried to enthesis the thief of someones property when the whole argument is based on the fact that they should not be allowed to own it.

Wow there is a lot to read. Hehe.

 

[Ozymandyus]

You are wrong in so many ways. And you act like Joe is misquoting you by saying that you are for abolishment, when YOU PERSONALLY are for abolishment, and you are hoping your party goes in that direction.

Your crazy platform again and again makes the mistake of saying If all information based economy was FREE then poor people would get cheap drugs and cheap this and cheap that. Yes of course, if we abolished patents, drugs would be cheaper... Technology would be cheaper... lots of things would be cheaper. If we gave away food for free no one would starve. Until no one bothered to work to create food anymore because you can't make any money off it.
That is what you TOTALLY ignore - all creativity and all new information has NO VALUE in your system. That is the ENTIRE PURPOSE of the patent and copyright system, to reward inventors, innovators and creative people.

Not everyone thinks there needs to be abolishment of patent law. What does an inventor that slaves over a particular new technology get if he has a breakthrough idea? Why would companies invest billions in developing technologies if after they do all the research someone else can step in and make whatever it is at cost? It would completely destroy the innovation economy. Certain things should not be allowed to be patented, and certainly the system by which patents are awarded needs to be looked at, but not abolishment by a longshot.

You say manga artists make more money now due to things like fan subbing - but thats because you can't just TAKE ANYTHING FOR FREE in most places. Yes some people start out by giving their product away, but THEN they charge for it. And people feel that they are SUPPOSED to pay for it so they sometimes give money. Sales don't go up when you start giving away everything for free- Sales go towards $0. Especially as soon as everyone EXPECTS everything to be free.

Lastly, people are near capacity in terms of entertainment consumption already. It's not like if you start allowing people to download free music books and movies that they will suddenly start reading and listening to twice as much. Ultimately this is always about one thing - people want stuff to be free. What it really may do is make a even more competitive marketplace for such things, and little artists who used to make their start by giving away their music for free or by investing money in advertising will be ignored, when you can listen to the best reviewed music, the most professional movies etc for free.

Abolishing Copyright will destroy disinformation? Not going to happen. If anything there will be even MORE disinformation out there, like the billions of conspiracy theories on every topic ever that we saw gain stronger footholds with the rise of the internet. Though you strike me as someone who believes many of those.

As for there being 'limits on complete global notoriety' yes, it does take millions of dollars and embedded infrastructure of people that know markets and trends all over the world to rocket someone to superstardom. Did I ever disagree with that? In your system this will not change, just so you know, it will just become less likely that anyone is a superstar... which I don't much care about either way.

 

[Tsunamie]

Ozymandyus, Not acting like he misquoted me. Was simply making it clear that the statement was not defensive but simply informative. Also to make it clear that patents and copyright are two separate issues.

Hum... So you seem to agree that removal of the patent and copyright laws make the whole system better. Yet you would go on to say that no one would do anything because they would have no personal gain?

I disagree with that position completely, the argument is that they are rewarded and that technology would improve at a greater rate. The inventor's and creative individuals will still be rewarded, the model for example in the video link provided to joe clearly shows that the alternative model actually rewards the artists more directly by cutting out the distributor.

Your enthesis on greed driving the system to do better is also questionable. I also do not agree that greed is the only mechanism for new idea's to be created. I feel that need is the greatest driver of information creation.

Competitive market, I somewhat agree with this assertion to a point. Competition to climb to the top will be more competitive. However if you want to be famous to gain money then thats not really a defense for enforcing a monopoly. If people like your media you will gain popularity.

Disinformation, actually we already know that conflicting information can be spotted thanks to the abundance of information available. Given the rise of the internet, disinformation tend to get confronted, it does give a platform for people that want to spread false information however since the information is false, it inherently has less weight and easily picked apart or proven to be false with the information that is available.. I think this forum is a good example of how false information gives new sources proving if information is false or not.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

You are wrong in so many ways. And you act like Joe is misquoting you by saying that you are for abolishment, when YOU PERSONALLY are for abolishment, and you are hoping your party goes in that direction.

Well, people who cannot or will not create on their own but feel entitled to get the work of other people without paying for it are ALWAYS going to be upset when their selfish self-centered viewpoint is laid out honestly and accurately.

Your crazy platform again and again makes the mistake of saying If all information based economy was FREE then poor people would get cheap drugs and cheap this and cheap that. Yes of course, if we abolished patents, drugs would be cheaper... Technology would be cheaper... lots of things would be cheaper. If we gave away food for free no one would starve. Until no one bothered to work to create food anymore because you can't make any money off it.
That is what you TOTALLY ignore - all creativity and all new information has NO VALUE in your system. That is the ENTIRE PURPOSE of the patent and copyright system, to reward inventors, innovators and creative people.

Exactly. Everything would be free, and then there would never be anything new ever again, There would be no new movies, no new music and tours, no new books, no new games, no new nothing. There would be a momentary spike in access, and then no access at all.

Not everyone thinks there needs to be abolishment of patent law. What does an inventor that slaves over a particular new technology get if he has a breakthrough idea? Why would companies invest billions in developing technologies if after they do all the research someone else can step in and make whatever it is at cost? It would completely destroy the innovation economy. Certain things should not be allowed to be patented, and certainly the system by which patents are awarded needs to be looked at, but not abolishment by a longshot.

But... it is unfair that some selfish "person" should actually have to PAY FOR THINGS! Don't you understand?!? People being compensated for their work must always take a backseat to the desires of "pirates" who somehow want to get paid for THEIR work but don't think anyone else should.

You say manga artists make more money now due to things like fan subbing - but thats because you can't just TAKE ANYTHING FOR FREE in most places. Yes some people start out by giving their product away, but THEN they charge for it. And people feel that they are SUPPOSED to pay for it so they sometimes give money. Sales don't go up when you start giving away everything for free- Sales go towards $0. Especially as soon as everyone EXPECTS everything to be free.

Lastly, people are near capacity in terms of entertainment consumption already. It's not like if you start allowing people to download free music books and movies that they will suddenly start reading and listening to twice as much. Ultimately this is always about one thing - people want stuff to be free. What it really may do is make a even more competitive marketplace for such things, and little artists who used to make their start by giving away their music for free or by investing money in advertising will be ignored, when you can listen to the best reviewed music, the most professional movies etc for free.

I think that's part of the issue: uncreative people who want the creative work of others without paying for it have convinced themselves that creativity is worthless. They refuse to acknowledge the fact that it takes lots of effort, time, skill, and MONEY to create quality creative work, as an excuse for why they deserve to steal it. The paradox is that if it is so worthless that no one should be paid for it, then why do they want it so badly? Why can't they just make their own?

Abolishing Copyright will destroy disinformation? Not going to happen. If anything there will be even MORE disinformation out there, like the billions of conspiracy theories on every topic ever that we saw gain stronger footholds with the rise of the internet. Though you strike me as someone who believes many of those.

Yeah, that's just childing whining about "The Man" and how evil he is.

As for there being 'limits on complete global notoriety' yes, it does take millions of dollars and embedded infrastructure of people that know markets and trends all over the world to rocket someone to superstardom. Did I ever disagree with that? In your system this will not change, just so you know, it will just become less likely that anyone is a superstar... which I don't much care about either way.

More importantly, it is a system where a superstar talent gets paid just as much as a no-talent hack... NOTHING. Maybe that's another facet of this? Could it be jealousy from "no talent" hacks who are mad about having to pay for things produced by their "betters"?

 

[ahdkaw]

Daniel Dennett - The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews

I suggest everyone in this thread should watch the above interview. In particular in regard to this political hot-potato, try watching from around 25 minutes onward, I think you may find the views expressed very interesting...

And maybe some people here could take on board the advice given.

 

[irmerk]

I literally skimmed through the OP and the last few posts, so I do not know what this eight page thread is about at this moment. It seems like you are arguing about intellectual property rights laws and if they are good or not. If this is not what it is about, just ignore me.

If it is, what about an example like Linux?

 

[Tsunamie]

Ahh, where should I begin with ImprobableJoe's idoicyncecies. Well, since he is intent on trying to spit me for pointing out the flawed logic used behind each of argument, or the fact that he continuously makes idiotic statements. I think I will just continue to point them out.

Well, people who cannot or will not create on their own but feel entitled to get the work of other people without paying for it are ALWAYS going to be upset when their selfish self-centered viewpoint is laid out honestly and accurately.

1> The policy is designed to distribute wealth and power away from distribution controllers to create more jobs and more money. (In essence ending monopolies on industries that are perpetuated by greed) Read selfish of me joe, I don't know how I live with myself. Do you know what, I suddenly had an amplify; I should just kill myself because of how evil I am for trying to create a better economy that is not based on greed.

EPIC FAIL!

I would have thought the current economic situation would have kind of moved people away from promoting systems like greed in the economy and you wonder why China owns your ass.

Exactly. Everything would be free, and then there would never be anything new ever again, There would be no new movies, no new music and tours, no new books, no new games, no new nothing. There would be a momentary spike in access, and then no access at all.

2> Right, so basically because something is free it does not continue to improve and become better? Wow Joe, I wonder how Ubuntu ever gets off the ground. Wonder why it's so much more secure than Microsoft and why the system runs fast and better then Microsoft vista? Wonder why Vista's graphical outlay and security features seem to be model on Linux based systems?

If you couldn't tell Joe, there was a lot of sarcasium in there.

Minor fail! (humm... felt it was minor as it's kind of a common misconception)

Not everyone thinks there needs to be abolishment of patent law. What does an inventor that slaves over a particular new technology get if he has a breakthrough idea? Why would companies invest billions in developing technologies if after they do all the research someone else can step in and make whatever it is at cost? It would completely destroy the innovation economy. Certain things should not be allowed to be patented, and certainly the system by which patents are awarded needs to be looked at, but not abolishment by a longshot.

And this is another common misconception, already explained that creativity and technology is increased by the sharing of information. Instead of corporations creating technology, small start-ups will be able to start creating technology from the information pool that is available. Early human history is kind of riddle with lots of advancements where the creator of the technology did not get a lot for there discovery but ended up making discoveries that changed the world. You assumption that money automatically ties in with new idea's is wrong, because more education systems come up with most of the ground breaking idea's. Not corporations, corporations use that knowledge that is not patented or copyrighted and make money out of it.

But... it is unfair that some selfish jackass should actually have to PAY FOR THINGS! Don't you understand?!? People being compensated for their work must always take a backseat to the desires of "pirates" who somehow want to get paid for THEIR work but don't think anyone else should.

3> So basically you justifying someone else's greed because they did something to deserver it? Humm. Do the granddaughters of the "happy birthday to you" song deserver the $2 million a year they get for there grandmother making a jingle?

Fail!

Humm.. Is a mix tape a new creation Joe? LOL!

You say manga artists make more money now due to things like fan subbing - but thats because you can't just TAKE ANYTHING FOR FREE in most places. Yes some people start out by giving their product away, but THEN they charge for it. And people feel that they are SUPPOSED to pay for it so they sometimes give money. Sales don't go up when you start giving away everything for free- Sales go towards $0. Especially as soon as everyone EXPECTS everything to be free.

Lastly, people are near capacity in terms of entertainment consumption already. It's not like if you start allowing people to download free music books and movies that they will suddenly start reading and listening to twice as much. Ultimately this is always about one thing - people want stuff to be free. What it really may do is make a even more competitive marketplace for such things, and little artists who used to make their start by giving away their music for free or by investing money in advertising will be ignored, when you can listen to the best reviewed music, the most professional movies etc for free.

Here the catch 22 with your argument. Ultimately the technology is better. I personally don't give a damn about the media side of things. That's how I can justify this, as to me media services to entertain people. The freedom of information, through the abolishment of copyright and patents is something that will create more knowledge. Because this is a new level of education, instead of people going to school and learning a set curriculum. Some poor kid in Africa can create a new mathematical formula for the "Theory of everything" from reading and teaching himself math from a web-page. A university student in India can create a new robot based on a paper that's freely available which was published by a student in England. Information worth having will be passed on and released like DNA. If the population of the world need to feel good listening to a song then so be it, ultimately the artist gets paid either way, when copyright gets abolished. For one, they would have been paid for there work by organizations or groups as shown at the end of this post.

I think that's part of the issue: uncreative people who want the creative work of others without paying for it have convinced themselves that creativity is worthless. They refuse to acknowledge the fact that it takes lots of effort, time, skill, and MONEY to create quality creative work, as an excuse for why they deserve to steal it. The paradox is that if it is so worthless that no one should be paid for it, then why do they want it so badly? Why can't they just make their own?

LOL!

My bank statement really kind a contradicts you statement at the moment. The money can some from other sources. How many times do you have to be told the same thing before you understand it? The money is there, it just doesn't come from the people.


Ps, a lot of our supporters are artists. Who happen to use the technology pretty well and do alright for themselves?

Yeah, that's just childing whining about "The Man" and how evil he is.

Right, speaking out monopolies is obviously wrong?

More importantly, it is a system where a superstar talent gets paid just as much as a no-talent hack... NOTHING. Maybe that's another facet of this? Could it be jealousy from "no talent" hacks who are mad about having to pay for things produced by their "betters"?

You keep repeating this bullshit. Already told you that the artists get paid.

Musician can make more money of tours and merchandise. The song on an mp3 is just the medium that lets the world know who they are. CD's will still be sold (granted not in the same quantities unless the world feels connected to them or there message)

The only thing that changes is the quality the people get. This is what matters and this is how artists get money. Using hyper distribution networks means that you infect people with desired media, this then spreads like a virus. Money is gained by the artist through live events, merchandising and the song quality itself.

Anime music video is an example, these things get people to want to hear the song.

Your Bullshit ignores the number of jobs this kind of system would create. More artists mean more support roles. More live venues, more bandwidth requirements from ISP which means more engineering jobs, more sales teams of ISPS to sell there product competitively. More of essentially everything, the real difference is that half the world media is not centralized from California. The Indians and Chinese hit americium hard with there current stance on copyright. The Indian's don't even enforce there own, they use hyperdistibution to carry adverts. Adverts are inbuilt into the movie like the way Dell pays a movie production to have a dell laptop in a shot. Or the way Apply pays for advertisement by asking them to use an Iphone.

As for games, you kidding me right? I know of hundreds of free addictive games which people play and the holsters or providers of these games get paid lots from advertisement.

You simple don't get how the money flows.

 

[Ozymandyus]

And this is another common misconception, already explained that creativity and technology is increased by the sharing of information. Instead of corporations creating technology, small start-ups will be able to start creating technology from the information pool that is available. Early human history is kind of riddle with lots of advancements where the creator of the technology did not get a lot for there discovery but ended up making discoveries that changed the world. You assumption that money automatically ties in with new idea's is wrong, because more education systems come up with most of the ground breaking idea's. Not corporations, corporations use that knowledge that is not patented or copyrighted and make money out of it.

This is where you completely fail. Corporations will STILL dominate sectors by controlling means of production, and being able to produce MORE for CHEAPER whether it be Walmart (who does not really abuse copyright or patent law) or big companies that make generic drugs. They will automate production lines, remove the expensive human elements. Cheap mass produced products made by 10 cent laborers will completely dominate, and will have all the latest technology without having to violate patents or royalties.

The only difference is individual inventors no longer will be bought out and get paid by these companies, they will simply have their ideas taken from them and used by giant companies. Creative people will no longer get paid when people use their music; big companies, stores, etc will just be able to use and sell their creative labor without paying royalities. Big publishers will be able to sell books for cheaper than any author could ever pay to get them printed, as you would know if you have ever tried to get a book printed. Big marketing will get the branding on their products and will reap 100% of the profit rather than have to give a portion to the artist.

Removing copyrighting and patenting fixes NOTHING that is wrong, and creates a whole host of problems.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

This is where you completely fail. Corporations will STILL dominate sectors by controlling means of production, and being able to produce MORE for CHEAPER whether it be Walmart (who does not really abuse copyright or patent law) or big companies that make generic drugs. They will automate production lines, remove the expensive human elements. Cheap mass produced products made by 10 cent laborers will completely dominate, and will have all the latest technology without having to violate patents or royalties.

The only difference is individual inventors no longer will be bought out and get paid by these companies, they will simply have their ideas taken from them and used by giant companies. Creative people will no longer get paid for their music, big companies, stores, etc will just be able to package and sell their creative labor without paying royalities. Big publishers will be able to sell books for cheaper than any author could ever pay to get them printed, as you would know if you have ever tried to get a book printed. Big marketing will get the branding on their products and will reap 100% of the profit rather than have to give a portion to the artist.

Removing copyrighting and patenting fixes NOTHING that is wrong, and creates a whole host of problems.

Yes, and all those things would matter if the real goal was more than just getting something for nothing. Unfortunately, the only real thinking involved is "gimme free shit!" and all the rest of it is post hoc rationalization.

 

[Tsunamie]

This is where you completely fail. Corporations will STILL dominate sectors by controlling means of production, and being able to produce MORE for CHEAPER whether it be Walmart (who does not really abuse copyright or patent law) or big companies that make generic drugs. They will automate production lines, remove the expensive human elements. Cheap mass produced products made by 10 cent laborers will completely dominate, and will have all the latest technology without having to violate patents or royalties.

Which is funny because fords assembly line and the industrial age. The Unions said the same thing, then who new industries popped up and we grew even faster and provided many more jobs than before.

Ow wait, was that kind of what I have been saying all this time. If you note on the financial side alone, my argument for abolishing patents was that the resulting effect is an increase of a nation's economy. This means that when a limitation or a monopoly is removed, competition is allowed to thrive and progress is born.

The only difference is individual inventors no longer will be bought out and get paid by these companies, they will simply have their ideas taken from them and used by giant companies.

Technologically that has generally always been the case. However we benefited from it. (Example would be the concept of robotic assembly lines) No matter how you argue this point, if you remove copyright, competition becomes higher and as we know a competitive environment spurs improvements.

Creative people will no longer get paid when people use their music; big companies, stores, etc will just be able to use and sell their creative labor without paying royalities.

True, but the idea of the model was that the creative individual no longer get money like they did before. They get it from other sources, which is kind what I have been trying to drill into Joe's empty head. The market model was never designed to stop people from making money, it was designed to create more jobs in an environment which currently stifles new job creation.

Big publishers will be able to sell books for cheaper than any author could ever pay to get them printed, as you would know if you have ever tried to get a book printed. Big marketing will get the branding on their products and will reap 100% of the profit rather than have to give a portion to the artist.

Please elaborate this model.

Since the model I am discussing the one used in Bollywood, which have taken the hyper distribution model on board and now makes almost as much as Hollywood respectively. (given they have been around several decades less, I would have to say that's preaty impressive) Difference is artists get a larger cut then they would normally get. Since advertisement would have to work directly with the artists, music is precisely the same thing. How can you get an artist to endore a product without there concent?

Removing copyrighting and patenting fixes NOTHING that is wrong, and creates a whole host of problems.

Hum"¦ you seem to have gone back on yourself in this statement. Since you have already stated everything would become cheaper. The way everything becomes cheaper is because distribution channels are no longer controlled. Artists get the funds directly from corporations or advertisement.

This is what really gets me Ozymandyus. You say it does not work, yet it is proven to work, real life examples of product can be found every where. You go to Japan, China, India and these guys have taken this concept so much further.

Games, movies, software for the general public are following a free to use base model. Instead of taking the cash from the general public, the money comes from corporations, companies, government in general and people can donate to this project. There are several free anti virus programs which for some reasons seem to work better than some of the professional ones. Software like open source projects that now pretty damn good, like open office. We then move even further and go into music, where there are lots of really good artists that are just putting there songs on YouTube or pod casting themselves. I have read fan fiction, I have watched free movies like "blue sky" that were just awesome. You talk of an apocalypse yet you think I am talking about things that will happen in the future. This stuff is already happening, why do you think they are making the copyright laws more restrictive? They want to kill these industries off as they weaken there own.

You talk of this problem, out line them. You sound like someone from the industrial revolution. because at this point. I have shown you real life products that already follow these models, people still get paid. I am not saying this will destroy distribution companies, I am just saying it will level the playing field. There are hundreds of other models that work in a no copyright system. Hyper distribution is just one of them and seemingly one of the most popular.