[jiggy2011]

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?

[nkassis]

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.

[jiggy2011]

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.

[intended]

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-...

[ThomPete]

Why would it give you less freedom?

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

[jiggy2011]

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.

[ThomPete]

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.

[jiggy2011]

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.

[ThomPete]

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?

[jiggy2011]

Of course people create cover versions of songs or re-use a good riff, there is always an element of copying ideas but I think this is different to completely ripping something off 100% since you must still create the rest of the body of work around the original idea.

Of course you could argue how much imitation should be allowed before it is considered a copyright or patent violation.

[ThomPete]

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.

[jiggy2011]

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.

[ThomPete]

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.

[jiggy2011]

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.