Thinking intellectual property laws and copyright laws are a good thing

The mindset of buying and selling copies would very quickly go away as you can just legally copy things for free so there would also be barely any reason to make those bootlegs.
Creators would have to find other business models like commissions for example. This explains it better hcsoftware.sourceforge.net/jason-rohrer/freeDistribution.html

Proprietary alternatives are already dying out in favor of open source ones, and now viable market models are making these alternatives profitable.
Free market wins again.

In a world without IP laws there would probably still be anti-fraud laws, so this shouldn't be a problem.

>Proprietary alternatives are already dying out in favor of open source ones, and now viable market models are making these alternatives profitable.
Exhibit A: Proprietary software with a tremendous market share.
- Microsoft Windows
- Oracle databases
- Adobe Photoshop
- Adobe InDesign
- Microsoft Word
- Denuvo (good luck with open source DRM for games)
There is no viable alternative to ANY of these.

imagine a world where you can't get paid for making software or art

just because it has no copyright doesn't mean you can't sell it

Literally 80% of the artists on bandcamp do this already

>Creators would have to find other business models like commissions for example.
yes that's so much better than copyright laws isn't it
you're a fucking retard

>just because it has no copyright doesn't mean you can't sell it
yeah it just means that some other asshole will come along, steal your work and sell it for cheaper and people will buy from them instead
also people will just get your shit for free seeing it's legal anyway

see shenzhen as an example of what this would be like

You're implying that this isn't already the case, which it is, except the asshole almost always charges absolutely nothing. Yet artists still make money through optional buys and concerts.

What's the problem with it?

It isn't
People don't resell your shit without permission in the first world, and the mere fact that piracy is illegal dissuades alot of people from doing it in the first place (stupid but true)

There is nothing wrong with this model.

or improve on it which I guess would be the idea behind this.

Comissions mean you are being paid by someone else to do something they want instead of doing what you want. That isn't how creativity works. You will never be able to express your ideas. You're basically just another worker

>or improve on it
yes because people reselling your music for 1/10th the price are gonna be improving it on right

>thinking intellectual property laws and copyright laws are a good thing
Laws are always good. The more laws the better the society functions.
>thinking that they actually cause more innovation
When you are restricted, you are more creative. The more laws and restrictions, the better creativity and production.
>thinking that intellectual property can actually be stolen
Of course it can be stolen. I had an idea and made something. The other person copied it, so now I don't have my idea or the thing I made, because it was stolen.

Why would people resell your shit if someone is giving it away for free? I don't think you've thought this out. I can get almost any track from any band for free, why would I buy it?

I made that point aswell. People will either resell your shit, or they will get it for free seeing it's now legal and socially acceptable

You're missing the part where people will voluntarily pay for your things.

Commissions were just one example. If you actually read the link I posted you'd see that there are other solutions, none of them as silly as selling copies. Crowdfunding is one. It allows you to do what you want and then showing it to people to fund further development.
Sadly crowdfunding in its current state needs a lot of work as there's a lot of abuse with people not delivering what's promised.

by and large they won't
the amount of people who make a living through donations for their creative work is very very small in comparsion to people who sell their shit

I did read the link. Comissions aren't a solution. Benefactors are also not a solution seeing peoples creative output are now controlled by a financial elite (does that sound familiar?) Donations don't work either as I just pointed out

>the amount of people who make a living through donations for their creative work is very very small in comparsion to people who sell their shit
This is false outright. Most artists on the planet exhibit their works on free platforms and allow free downloads in hopes that they will voluntarily buy the album. Soundcloud comes to mind.

the music industry is in a fucking awful state if you haven't noticed, in large part for exactly that reason, musicians have even more trouble making money now than they did in the days of oppressive record companies taking all their profit
In the industries I work in the amount of people who make a living through donations is less than 1%, and that's not for lack of trying

You have to keep in mind that selling copies is currently viable thanks to that business model being propped up by copyright laws. Of course alternative income streams will be less viable as long as those laws are in place.
As for the whole creative output being controlled by a financial elite, the current system is no different. The vast majority of people writing software for example work for companies doing what the company wants, no what they want. It is commonly free software where programmers just create what they want.

Intellectual property isn't property, and only communists disagree.

But with copyright laws you can start your own business, selling your own products, it's difficult but you can do it if you're good enough
Under a benefactor system or a comissions system you're 100% tied to what other people want from you, which is not how creativity happens

Source?

Then what about crowdfunding? As I said, it needs some work to hold people accountable to actually deliver what's promised but otherwise it's the creator presenting their own ideas and seeing if people are willing to invest in it.

All the music and art of the Baroque period and before was composed under no copyright laws and is loved even today. Are you trying to tell me that Beethoven or Bach was not creative?

Attached: Kako-bi-govorio-Sokrat-danas-Sudjenje-i-smrt-Sokratova-750x425.jpg (750x425, 106K)

crowdfunding is a solution which can work in specific circumstances, like donations/patreon, but neither of these work to the point where you can just go and abolish copyright law completely

not everyone is Beethoven or Bach
copyright exists to enable everyone to have an idea and be able to make money off it, not just the most popular guys who would have no trouble with money under and system

>But with copyright laws you can start your own business, selling your own products, it's difficult but you can do it if you're good enough
You can start a business even without copyright laws, what are you trying to say?

you're chinese aren't you

No you can't, you try to sell your own software without copyright and everyone will just go and get it for free because it's legal

>copyright exists to enable everyone to have an idea and be able to make money off it
Why is this necessary?

Musicians don't even make much money from album sales anyway, I pointed this out earlier. Modern bands make ~10% from album sales, the rest is from gigging. So assuming under piracy this number drops to 0 (which is something that is not true) the band still makes 90% of its revenue.

open licensing would quite literally solve the problem of "theft": you can steal shit, but you have to let others steal shit from you too

modern bands little money period
and software developers can't gig

The post you linked does not explain to me why it is necessary for the business model of selling copies to be artificially made viable through draconian laws.

Software developers work for companies on contract or write internal software. 70% of software contracts in the states are done for internal software that would exist regardless of copyright.

And writers of open-source software get paid anyways (apache, linux, mozilla)

Because no better alternative exists
The only alternative that can exist is donations, and that may work sometime in the future where everyones attitudes have dramatically changed and everyone is willing to be a donator, but that will not work in a current society, most people will just take shit for free

>he doesn't know that you can write software using a reverse TOTP code that HAS to check in with a server or it won't work

copyright is cancer and doesn't do shit

>Software developers work for companies on contract or write internal software
Or they write new software, which is how software companies start, and only the top 1% would ever get paid for doing so if copyright law didn't exist

>imagine the tech world without patents
It would be a world where only big billion dollar companies existed by blatantly copying and stealing good ideas from everyone and a literal DRM hell hole.

You say this yet you have no evidence to back it up. If this was true then patreon would be dead, and none of those tens of thousands of Japanese artists would make money off of their derivative works that they release.

>Or they write new software, which is how software companies start
The vast majority of new software projects are open-source.

Patreon works, but it only works for the top 1%

Fastest way to prove OP is a retard: pharmaceuticals.
>Spend decade and millions researching medications
>half decade of clinical trials and additional millions for FDA approval
>put med on market
>copied in six months and go bankrupt
patents are needed for anyone with long R&D cycles with high costs to be viable.

>Because no better alternative exists
There's have been a number of alternatives posted in this thread already and I see no reason why they would not work.
The only reason they're currently not working as well is that copyright is in place and in people's heads making the selling of copies the most viable. If copyright was abolished people would be forced to find alternatives.
On top of that we already have proof of alternatives working with free software that somehow gets people employed and artists giving away their art and still making money through live performances or commissions as well as donations through systems like Patreon.
The alternatives do work and they would work even better without copyright in place.

You have a delusional bias
If I write consumer software then I have no way to make money off it without copyright law unless it's so popular that I can start a patreon

Not true.

>what is first-mover advantage
okay retard

Go to Steam and look at the video games people are buying and tell me if all of those people set up a Patreon that people would actually donate
You have a very skewed view of the market if you think they would

Then tell me how linux succeeded, because it started as a little project just as you described

Do you believe that every game on Steam makes money? Here, let me take your retarded statement and turn it around:
Selling copies works, but it only works for the top 1%.

Exceptions do not prove a rule. Very very few open source projects make any money. That's not a market, that's not an industry

I said take a look at the video games people are buying, not take a look at the video games. 1% of Steam games might make money, but 1% of that 1% are popular enough to be able to make any money through donations

And how do you know that?

He doesn't.

I work in the video game industry. The average consumer does not make any donations. Enthusiasts make donations. Enthusiasts are a small proportion of the audience, and they spend less money on donations than they do on buying shit. If you abolished copyright law and made donations the only option that would obviously increase, but there would still be far less money in the industry overall because people can just get your shit for free. Take a look at China. Copyright law is not enforced, how much media comes out of China?

They are and they do.
The problem is patents.

Fuck i hate this mind set one of the modules i have to do for cs is called working in the computer industry. Have some retarded boomer teacher he always says shit like this, he needs to be shot

>how much media comes out of China
A lot. Most for the domestic market.

If you think copyright laws somehow increase creativity throughput or increase innovation, they do not, and studies agree.

>but there would still be far less money in the industry overall because people can just get your shit for free
And how is that a bad thing? Why should we prop up an industry that is not financially viable? Should we still prop up manual weavers even though we've had weaving machines for over two centuries now?
Copyright is doing nothing other than that. If the industry can't survive with these laws it deserves to be dead.

>A lot. Most for the domestic market.
lol
China is completely creatively bankrupt
They copy shit from the West and Japan
Japan has the biggest creative output of East Asia and they're huge on purchasing software and comics and music as products, is that a coincidence?
Saying "studies agree" doesn't mean anything

You can just use DRMs

>japan has the biggest creative output
China literally makes more media than Japan and goes against your idea that the lack of copyright in China somehow reduces their output.

Pulling shit out of your ass doesn't mean anything.

That's a bad analogy
"creative" industries could still exist under a donation model, they would just be alot more conservative because it would be alot harder for anyone to come along with a new idea and start making money off it

Kids outside of China aren't watching Chinese cartoons or reading Chinese comics or playing Chinese video games, and that's not just because China refuses to export them

Oh yeah, I'm just going for the most extreme example. I don't believe in creative industries crumbling without copyright myself. It's not like people have been completely devoid of creativity before copyright came along. If they did however I would hardly care. They simply wouldn't have been viable.

That has nothing to do with copyright, and kids in the west are picking up on chink manga. Also, one of the most popular games in Japan is a chink kancolle that's better than the original, and isn't region locked.

Attached: azur-lane.jpg (1200x628, 734K)

All Chinese media rips off Japanese and Western media, as you pointed out, often to the point that it would actually be breaking copyright law if they were released in the West. They may be an industrious country, but they are not creative

>They simply wouldn't have been viable.
It still isn't viable.

Something that is meaningless when it takes years to recoup R&D expenditures

But that has nothing to do with China's copyright laws and somehow reducing their output as you said.

Yes it does. China has extremely low cultural and creative output. That's not entirely because they have no copyright law, they're also poor and partially Communist, but Communist philosophy is another example of something that completely ignores creativity in society, and so the USSR was stuck in the stone age while the USA flourished

>China has extremely low cultural and creative output
Which is why their entertainment and media sector is so big, right?

are you purposefully ignoring the point here? it's big because they have alot of people. Chinese media rips off the media from captialist countries

You claimed that the copyright laws that China lacks somehow decreases the amount of work that they produce, yet it does not, per capita they produce as much stuff as the US does.

It decreases their creativity. when I said "how much media comes out of China", I meant the rest of the world doesn't give a shit about Chinese media because it's creatively bankrupt, because they just rip shit off

Western media is literally just as creatively bankrupt.

The creative industry is just the copying of elements from other works and shitting out for everyone to see. In the case of Azure Lane, the chinks managed to make it better than the original. This is literally what Shakespeare did and he would not have been able to do so if copyright had existed in his time.

>china is creatively bankrupt
He said, while browsing anichart in search for the next isekai to watch.

You're allowed to take ideas and make them better under copyright law
China makes video games that are exact clones of Western and Japanese video games, often with the same characters in them
Same with anime and manga
At this point I just feel like you're arguing in bad faith

>China makes video games that are exact clones of Western and Japanese video games, often with the same characters in them
>Same with anime and manga
Ah yes, because Japanese doujins are okay but Chinese ones aren't.

Doujins aren't ripoffs, they're fan fiction
It's clear you have a bias here

>It takes talent, dedication, and years of your life to make produce something amazing

This.
All the various variants of freetards don't understand this. People, and It's mostly men, do great things because they want recognition/money/fame/pussy/whatever. In all functioning societies there are laws and rules in place to make these kind of incentives work.
You can reasonably argue that patent law is abused, but eliminating patents and copyrights would be insane.

Germany would not have been able to industrialize in the late 19th century if they had patent and copyright law.

>People, and It's mostly men, do great things because they want recognition/money/fame/pussy/whatever
great men do great things because they want to do great things, not because they want fame or money or pussy

IP laws have existed for a couple hundred years. People have created far longer than that.