Part of the reason you are paid so much as a designer who works "for hire" either employed or as a freelancer is that your client wants something unique.

Let's assume that there is no copyright. You get a contract from a client to design them a logo , website and smartphone app to promote their business.

However your client knows that if a competitor wishes to copy their entire website including logo and app etc they can do so with impunity so all that they will get from whatever sum they invest in your work is a slight first mover advantage and probably the better the work you do the more likely someone else is to copy it.

How much do you think they are willing to pay you for your work now?

Ever walked into a department store like Macy's? It's all ripoff from designers. There is no copyright on clothe design yet that hasn't killed the designer clothing market.

Counterfeit goods to my knowledge fall under trademark laws.

I think this is why people have such high regard for labels in fashion.

Fashion is also a very visible way to display wealth whilst software is not, "aaah but was your copy of Office 2010 compiled by Steve Ballmer himself".. just doesn't happen.

If we got rid of software copyright what would actually happen would be that all commercial software would be moved into a SaaS model and companies would keep their servers and code under lock and key so that nobody could get physical access to it. This would probably give you less freedom rather than more.

Perhaps some movies would also be screened only at cinemas so that nobody ended up with a DVD that they could copy.

Its worth pointing out that fashion is a unique industry when it comes to copying; everyone copies everyone else.

There was a great article on this on the net, written by someone in the industry who fleshed it out with anecdotes which included a high level designer going into a budget store and looking at the design and products there, to copy.

Sadly I can't find that article, I offer a freaknomics article in its stead: http://www.freakonomics.com/2010/03/03/behind-the-scenes-of-...

Why would it give you less freedom?

Software will turn into SaaS anyway or to onLive types of constructions.

If all my software is only available via a cloud service then it would restrict my freedom compared to having a local copy to the extent that I have no control over any changes to the software.

If they release an update that I don't like for example then it will not be possible for me to retain the older version.

If they decide to discontinue the software or go bust etc then I will lose access to it, this would not happen if I had my own copy.

If I have all my data saved on their servers then I am at their whim as I don't have the files myself so that makes it harder to move to another piece of software should they change their ToS in a way I do not agree with.

If I have confidential data stored with them and their servers are broken into then this causes issues that could be avoided by holding it on my own computer firewalled away from the internet.

And crucially I will not be able to access it without a working internet connection.

This may be the way of the future whether I like it or not but I wouldn't hail it completely as a good thing in terms of freedom or digital rights etc.

I actually find it somewhat ironic that a lot of the best FOSS work (Linux , Apache , Python etc) that was intended to create a software freedom utopia is actually being used primarily to build walled gardens where you have no control over the software.

All your software don't have to be available via the cloud. The data could be or vice versa. There will still be plenty of free alternatives just as there are today.

You very well know there are plenty of ways around this and it is being practiced today.

Spotify is one example.

You are creating pseudo problems that would not really exist.

I don't think I'm creating psuedo problems.

If you have software without the cloud then you return to the same copyright problem repeated ad nauseum in this thread.

Ok, perhaps you could have applications in the cloud with locally stored data but I can't see this as being popular for 2 reasons.

1) Vendors would like the lock-in power that storing your data gives.

2) If I have a lot of data it may not be practical to upload it every time I use the cloud software on a slow uplink.

There are not really "plenty of free alternatives" to many types of software, at least alternatives that are as good as commercial offerings. Examples would include image editors and games.

Using Spotify as an example, all of the music is streamed from the internet so if they remove a track from their library then I lose my ability to stream it. Also to sign up for Spotify now you need a facebook account, I don't have one or want one. Luckily I got my account before this was a requirement but if they decide to apply this policy retroactively then I'm shit out of luck.

And then you use some other service. See pseudo problems.

Assuming there is another service that fits my needs, doesn't have the same problem, has a price I like and will let me move all my data over from the old service..

I just don't understand why you think losing all control over your software would be preferable to copyright?

A competitor can do that today. In fact that happens all the time, even among creatives.

Do you know how many songs are stealing of each other?

Should we tell musicians to pay for the licks and riffs they takes from someone else music and incorporate into his how?

But the argument is that it takes something away from the artiste. That it's not only like stealing but that it is actually stealing.

So what is it? Is it taking something away from the original creator (and the creator before him/her) or is it not.

I think the legal system deals with that. If you believe that you are losing money due to somebody else stealing your intellectual property then you can sue.

I would not equate copying necessarily with stealing but each copy that is made of your software/music whatever will dilute it's value to an extent unless there is some compensation. Commercial software hopes you will compensate by paying money, OSS hopes you will compensate by providing code or some other service.

But it's not the actual copy but the ip.

So it's not really any different, besides of course that transcribing someone's licks and incorporating it into your own style isn't going to get exposed.

What do you mean "isn't going to get exposed" , people complain all the time that certain songs re-use riffs from older songs.

Your argument seems to boil down to what the minimum unit of valid IP is. This is a complex issue and is often fought in courts.

Taking a riff from someone elses song and rebuilding a new song around it requires a lot more creativity time and money than simply copying and redistributing the song.

Copyright isn't so much for protecting an "idea" as such (that's what patents are for). It is to stop somebody reproducing a complete piece of work without prior agreement.

Let's say I build a new type of software and publish it, then somebody else thinks that is a good idea and builds their own version that is similar to mine (without re-using my source code). I would view that as flattery and competition. However I have a strong first mover advantage and whilst they may have learned from some of my mistakes they still have to actually do the work of creating their software which puts us economically on a relatively even footing.

Suppose instead they simply redistribute my software with their logo on it for half the price then they have a strong economical advantage because they didn't have to invest the initial development costs that I did.

Please re-read what this is about.

Are musicians stealing from other musicians when they transcribe a song or a riff or a chord progression, or a signature sound?

If they are then all musicians are stealing all the time.

If it's not then copying music isn't stealing either.

I'm sorry but are you trolling me on purpose?

I deliberately did not equate anything with stealing and you haven't responded to the overall point of my previous post.

Do you know what trolling is?

Let me rephrase then.

Is it different from an ip point of view if you transcribes riff or a chord progression from other musicians?

In other words is it ok when the musicians do it?

Yes, it is different for reasons already discussed.

Why would it be different for musicians?

So to clarify: if you do work with the intent of selling it to one buyer it should be protected, but if you do work with the intent of selling it to two or more buyers it should not?

No. Rather, the point is that you are paid for your work rather than a copy of the result of your work. This is just like a software developer working for a salary rather than somebody eking out an existence in an app store.

But who will pay me for my work if it is not some bespoke contract thing?

Will you ask for donations? What happens if you announce you will work on something and take a bunch of donations in the first couple of months (enough to live off).

What happens if the donations then dry up and you run out of money so you can't continue to work on the program full time but it is not finished? Do you have to go into debt to repay the people who donated or do they have to take a gamble that your program will get finished and be good enough?

Or do you only start work when you have sufficient donations to finish development? What happens if you misjudge this?

I don't know how it translates to non-programming stuff, but the vast majority of developers do work for in-house stuff (I've seen this cited somewhere, but can't remember exactly where). Only a minority try to actually sell programs (admittedly including some big companies like Adobe and Microsoft, but that's a different story). Moreover, as somebody using exclusively open-source tools--and being more productive than before--I can testify that the world would not be too bad without anybody selling proprietary programs.

My point isn't that this model can carry over unchanged to a different field; rather, all I maintain is that it is possible for a creative endeavor to be pushed largely by creators working for a salary rather than a royalty. I do not know enough about fields outside of programming to figure out exactly how it would work, but I see no reason it could not exist.

Paying someone a salary inhouse will work for stuff like "Bespoke BigCorp Customer Database" but I don't think it would work so well for general use applications intended to be sold to the population and I don't think we want those type of apps to die.

Open source dev tools are great because they are built by developers who understand what developers want and crucially they were built because they were needed i.e there was nothing commercial that did the job in the way they wanted.

How many developers know enough about developing image , video or audio editing software to do it well on their own? Most OSS solutions in this area are basically poor clones of commercial software. Also where will the money come from to fund them doing this full time?

I know as one example Ardour is developed full time and is quite a cool piece of OSS for sound editing but it's developed by one guy who can barely pay his bills from the donations, he probably makes what he would at burger king.

You would think that computer programmers would be able to design some awesome OSS games right? After all about 50% of my CS class joined the course because they wanted to make games and it's probably one of the most popular topics on any programming forum.

Well I can't really think of a single OSS game that has ever really impressed me and certainly none have become popular in the same way Half life or Skyrim has (by OSS game I mean a game that was developed under an OSS model, not something where the code was released by the developer 10 years later or something that is essentially an open source mod for a commercially developed game).

And I have yet to be provided with any reasonable business model that would still enable the creation of something like the Great Pyramids of Giza, or the Great Wall of China. I just don't think this idea of abolishing slavery has legs.

Well I'm no historian but I think it's possible that in the time of the ancient Egyptians the idea to abolish slavery would not be feasible whilst retaining their society. If they didn't have slaves to do the heavy lifting then it's likely that another civilization which did use slavery would simply wipe them out due to better efficiency.

Slavery was abolished partly because there was enough technology to make it less necessary.

If we could automate human creativity then I suppose copyright would no longer be necessary.

we did. It's called /the internet/, (or euphamistically, "piracy") that's what all this fuss is about. Catch up, man!

I see, now I understand. Nobody had to design or program any of those websites or other online content. It just sprang into existence organically!

Gosh I am behind the times.

There was a time, not that long ago, when there was no such thing as recorded music or films. People just performed the music live. Then one day, the phonograph was invented, and thomas edison paid musicians to perform in front of a phonograph recording machine. The musicians were happy, because they got paid for a performance. Thomas Edison was happy, because he got to make a gajillian zillion dollars off of that artists performance using his "automated creativity machine". Since then the major advance has been that record companies have worked out how to not bother paying the musicians for that original recorded performance.

Also, I missed this before, but... ARE YOU SERIOUSLY ADVOCATING SLAVERY?!

you adapt, or you die.

Not really a helpful answer, doesn't address any of my points.

I think "adapt or die" has the risk of killing a lot of good business models that have so far provided us with some great content/software etc.

I have yet to be provided with a good business model for content in a post copyright world that can be made to work for every type of content that we currently enjoy.

No there is no hope here. It's like being asked to do a painting. You do it once and sell it.