Okay - so I gave a pretty kneejerk response to an annoying comment in another thread on this, but now I want to do some brainstorming with the rest of the people of SP for some viable alternatives to the current system of copyright.

I'm going to assume that we all agree that the current system is either a) damaging to society, or b) useless. If you don't agree with these assumptions, please start another thread to argue the point.

***

To start us off:

1) Donations to artists. Let's face facts - the current system is basically a donation anyway. The only reason to pay for something is because you wish to support the artist and/or company that produced it as things are so easy to steal with no repercussions (if you take some pretty simple precautions).

Thus - going by this model - it would be possible to donate to the artist if you felt that the product was worth it and worth encouraging more of. If its assumptions are true (that people aren't actually afraid of copying because of copyright laws - but choose to buy things because they support the work), then very little should actually change insofar as artists getting money (indeed - if you can donate directly to the artist they'd probably get more money).

2) Paying in advance. This one I'm ripping from a Gamasutra article I once read. The idea is that if you want an artist to make a product - you'd pledge money into a pool. When the pool has as much money as the artist wishes to make the product then they can release it.

This one has some drawbacks - as no one is going to put money into a pool of someone that they've never heard of before. Thus, startup artists aren't going to get any reward for their first product.

Copyrights in itself do not need to be removed, the fair use of copyrights need to be improved however. Downloading copyrighted stuff for free should never be and will never be legal, but on the other hand users should be allowed to make backup copies of their products, or transfer them to other devices.

I also support that software makers take more responsibility for their products. If their copy protection prevents someone from playing their game they should be responsible to offer full refunding. Also there should be some sort of quality standards for games and programs on the market, customers should not be forced to wait on patches to get their software to work properly. Today it feels a bit like the customer takes all the responsibility for faulty products that advertise something completely different than they actually are. It's wrong and should be changed.

As for the choices you presented, I think all of them are completely unrealistic and greatly damaging to the industry. I really fail to see why someone's hard work should be available to you free? It just does not make sense to me.

EDIT: One exeption though which I think would be fair. Copyrights should last only as long as the product is available. I would give the copyright owner about five years time after they have stopped selling the product to restart its sale. If this does not happen the product should be considered as freeware without economical gains for anyone.

I think online sells would be great and artists could be able to hire just a bunch of coders to make the shop, or even use a template. Then you'd go and buy individual songs. The downside of this system is that it would be hard to tell illegally shared files from clean ones.

@Morgoroth:

As for the choices you presented, I think all of them are completely unrealistic and greatly damaging to the industry.That's the point, actually.

@ aikanaro:
I disagree with the effectiveness of those methods. People will steal the products or "forget" to donate to said artist or pool.

Also, how do you tell the difference between a relatively original idea and ideas that are ripped off? I could make a product that is exactly like another product that I've never heard of but then get into trouble for ripping that other idea (that I've never heard of) off.

@chev:
Then why not some sort of pattern in the file, or some such, that shows that it is clean? For instance, you sign in to get the file, download it which comes with some indicator and then when the file goes through any sort of internet or network connection, though indicator gets removed before the bits get shipped off to the destination? I don't know how feasible that would be for either the creator or the consumer, however.

@Morogorth:
Isn't that what abandonware basically is? And isn't the length of time before a product becomes abondonware like 10-15 years? If I find where I read such, then I'll be sure to post a link for it.

A quality control system isn't a bad idea, however a large problem is, at least potentially, bribing the quality control personnel, "convincing" them that the product is of high enough quality and completion.

A few ways to at least partially counteract such, IMO, is to have a small portion of games bought go to a form of quality control council (possibly consisting of game reviewers, so they can conveniently do two things at once: quality control and review the game).

Another solution would go to a second level of beta testing (if there isn't one already). For instance, the same system is kept (alpha testing within the company, followed by a small portion of gamers testing a beta version) plus a final stage where the "finished" product is released to a different, small set of gamers, then after their feedback, release the game.
I got off topic, didn't I?

I am with Morgoroth on this, the fair use needs to be improved, a lot. Recently there have only been changes that try to, more or less, remove any fair use.

As for abandonware, the term has no legal meaning, the software is still under copyright and thus it is illegal to distribute it without permission. Luckily there has been a small increase in the amount of old software that has been released as freeware. This is also something that should be revised, Morgoroth suggested one alternative, which is quite decent I think.

This won't solve all the problems, but it will improve much:

Shorter terms for copyright. Let's say, 14 years for creative works like books, movies and music (I think 14 years was the original term a book was copyrighted; there is no reason to actually extend this term, but rather the contrary, since nowadays life goes much faster than 150 years ago). And I would say 5 or 7 years for software - this gets dated much faster.

This would cut a lot on the tendecies of big corporations to accumulate and hold on to creative works and such. Artists can still become famous and get money from their work, but if they want it to last, they have to keep producing. If you think, this would give them more power with respect to corporations (compared with what they have now), since they would be the only ones who can produce new creations, and thus be a source of gains for the likes of RIAA and MPAA.

Oh, and a thing which does not have to do with copyright, but which I'd like to see: copy protection schemes relying on installing software on your computer should be made illegal. After all, I did not buy and do not want to run the latest Macrovision protection algorithm. I am sure software companies can protect their stuff through less invasive measures, like, for example, requiring registration for product support.

I'm going to assume that we all agree that the current system is either a) damaging to society, or b) useless. If you don't agree with these assumptions, please start another thread to argue the point.This thread is for coming up with alternatives to the current system of copyright, not for arguing whether or not alternatives are needed. If you want to support the current system, I would be happy to argue with you in another thread.

As for the choices you presented, I think all of them are completely unrealistic and greatly damaging to the industry.That's the point, actually.I'm not sure if chev is on my side here or not ... but he's right, it kind is the point.

I'm interested in seeing the artists get rewarded for their work. I'm also for seeing the rest of the industry die a painful death.

I don't think that #2 would damage the rest of the industry significantly though (it may even aid it, moneywise).

I really fail to see why someone's hard work should be available to you free? It just does not make sense to me.See, the thing is that it already is available to me for free. I can boot up whatever P2P program I like and there it all is.

Copyright doesn't work. It doesn't help the artist and it doesn't help the consumer.

I disagree with the effectiveness of those methods. People will steal the products or "forget" to donate to said artist or pool. I don't see how the first one is much different from the current system, except that we don't have to deal with the corporate police state needed to enforce present copyright laws.

The change is that the millions of people downloading things stop being criminals - that's it, basically. Being a criminal when you don't get caught isn't a deterrent to anyone - thus the majority of people end up stealing stuff. If we acknowledge the truth of the situation (that paying for a creative work is a totally voluntary process) - then the current situation is donations with the off chance of a totally bull**** lawsuit landing in your lap from the RIAA or similar.

Also, how do you tell the difference between a relatively original idea and ideas that are ripped off? I could make a product that is exactly like another product that I've never heard of but then get into trouble for ripping that other idea (that I've never heard of) off.I'm a little confused - are you asking how plagiarism would be dealt with without copyright?

I don't see why plagiarism can't be legislated against with an alternative system - passing someone's work off as your own is pretty lame, and I agree that should be stopped.

On the other hand, there are some very famous works that might be considered plagiarism under current laws - Romeo and Juliet, for one example (there are more - but I can't remember them at the moment). Using someone else's basic story elements and creating your own story with them should be fair game, as far as I can see. It improves culture, not damages it.

@Khaavern:

Shorter copyright terms would be a vast improvement. However, I still think it would be useless and ignored by the majority of people, plus it wouldn't stop the big corporations from extorting money from people via lawsuits and settlements.

abolishing copyright completely is not going to happen. Better to aim for something achievable, I think.

Enforcing copyright is completely not going to happen. Better to think up something that works, I think.

As long as people make profit from it it's not going to disappear and they sure are making profit now. While it might be difficult to enforce on many occations, scrapping it entirely will destroy the business and that will not be good for the industry nor the artists. There is a reason why artists/software or game makers sign up for big record/distributors companies and that's stability. They do not want to take all the risks themselves, otherwise they would publish everything themselves. Everything has a purpose.
I don't see any great injustice in this picture, the artists are free to go freelance once their contracts expire if they feel like it. Quite frankly I think that thinking about alternatives to copyright is pointless, it makes profit and it will continue to make profit. If it stops to make profit (which it won't) it's time to think about alternatives. Step number one would probably be tougher control on piracy at the cost of individual privacy and scrapping of copyrights at the very bottom of the list of alternatives.

So really, why would anyone except people who want stuff for free advocate alternatives to copyrights? You think that the production would not suffer? You think that it would not be more difficult and risky to make a living with music or software? As if it would not be difficult enough allready. I'm sorry but I find your ideas to be damaging to everyone except thieves who don't want to pay for stuff they use.

The only reason to pay for something is because you wish to support the artist and/or company that produced it as things are so easy to steal with no repercussions (if you take some pretty simple precautions). I think you might over-estimate this a bit. There is still a large proportion of the population who have no concept of piracy and therefore represent a huge part of the income for artists. Until I came to SP, I had no idea that there were people who were so heated up about this whole topic. All the people I know (including me) just buy stuff and don't think about it any further.

I think if you implemented donations to artists that hardly anyone would donate. That would be like making taxes voluntary. We all know that taxes go to useful things like roads and hospitals, but that doesn't stop us from trying to pay the least tax possible.

The change is that the millions of people downloading things stop being criminals - that's it, basically. Being a criminal when you don't get caught isn't a deterrent to anyone - thus the majority of people end up stealing stuff.I disagree with that. It's the same as saying that morality requires a higher being who is going to punish you if you're not good.

I don't need to believe I'm going to get caught in order not to pirate; I do it because my society says that's the behavior they expect from me as a member, and I agree with them that I should not take something without permission of the owner.

I don't need to believe I'm going to get caught in order not to pirate; I do it because my society says that's the behavior they expect from me as a member, and I agree with them that I should not take something without permission of the owner. I agree with that.

Morgoroth: You seem to support people making profits - which is fine. But why are you convinced that copyright is the best way for people to make profits? By all the *****ing that people do about 'OMG! My game failed because of teh piracy!', you'd think that those with an interest in making profits would be looking for a system that works and will return the most profit. The only way to find this system in the first place is to start discussing alternatives to the current one (Not that in reality any thoughts that come out of this thread are going to make any difference, but neither is anything else that comes out of this forum, so it's in good company...).

Step number one would probably be tougher control on piracy at the cost of individual privacy and scrapping of copyrights at the very bottom of the list of alternatives.My list would be reversed. I find individual privacy to be far more important than taking the effort to find a system that works for everyone and implementing it.

Harbourboy: You're probably right that I overestimate - but as time goes on there will be more and more tech-literate people. We can ignore it at the moment, sure, and the system will keep rolling on for a while. It will still suck and lead to a lot more bull**** such as the Sony Rootkit and RIAA rootkits - but the industry will keep making money.

Until, eventually, everyone realises the situation. If profits stay up after everyone realises that they can pirate - what we have is a working donations system (only with bull****).

BTA: I don't think you've interpreted me correctly.

I'm not saying that you need to believe that you're going to get caught in order to stop you from pirating. There are a number of valid reasons for not pirating - the belief that artists deserve money for their work being the main one for me.

However - the only reason that the current laws give for not pirating is 'if you don't, you'll get stabbed a hundred different ways for breaking the law'. That's not an incentive to not pirate. It's irrelevant, in fact, because they simply can't enforce it.

It's for other reasons than the law that those who don't pirate buy stuff. I feel that the law should reflect that, rather than being an irrelevant pain in the arse.

However - the only reason that the current laws give for not pirating is 'if you don't, you'll get stabbed a hundred different ways for breaking the law'. That's not an incentive to not pirate. It's irrelevant, in fact, because they simply can't enforce it.Laws don't state the reasons, they state what you are and are not allowed to do. They are legislated for various reasons deemed important by society. So, any law that exists in society should be followed, not because of the consequences if you don't, but for the reasons behind the law.

Also, laws are not irrelevant if they cannot be enforced; they exist to let you know what your society expects of you as a member. And that should be incentive enough to follow them.

I don't really view "the parliament not bothering to read a law which had it's research funded by the recording industry" as any kind of valid moral judgement.

Morgoroth: You seem to support people making profits - which is fine. But why are you convinced that copyright is the best way for people to make profits? Might not be the best but a lot better than the options you present or any I can think of. It works well enough for companies and so far. The ones who are going to suffer first are the artists and the ones suffering last is the big companies. So really in my opinion the pirates who want to support the artists but use piracy because they're against big corporations getting all the profits are shooting themselves in the leg.

My list would be reversed. I find individual privacy to be far more important than taking the effort to find a system that works for everyone and implementing it. My list was about realism not what I myself would support. However I have nothing against some moderation over internet usage in fact it's probably going to be happening some time in the future. Criminal acitvity (not talking about just piracy now) through the internet is a serious problem though, one that will require more drastic actions from the international community in the future. This is discussion for another topic really though.

On other issues I pretty much agree with BTA's statements.