Copyright
locallyunscene
Feeder of Trolls Join Date: 2002-12-25 Member: 11528Members, Constellation
Feeder of Trolls Join Date: 2002-12-25 Member: 11528Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">is it doing more harm than good?</div>So this discussion is bound to be more interesting than the love-fests we've had recently here in discussion land.
First off, a premise: Copyright <i>should</i> primarily exist to promote the progress of art and science. You're welcome to disagree, but I'll probably think you foolish, or greedy, or both. Also, if you consider yourself American, I might think you ignorant of your heritage:
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=U.S. Constitution)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (U.S. Constitution)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[Congress is granted the power ]To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I argue copyright is no longer fulfilling its purpose and is in fact detrimental to progress, as well as to the consumer in general. For scientific progress, Scientific Journals own the copyright on articles published in them, and high subscription fees must be paid in order to access these articles which are needed for peer review by other scientists. Doctors are seeing pharmaceutical companies trying to patent medical knowledge[<a href="http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_prior_art/2009/07/prometheus-labs-v-mayo-clinic-federal-circuit.html" target="_blank">example article</a>]. For art, very few things enter the public domain now. Scanned copies of older works are considered copyrighted even if the work itself is in the public domain[<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/technology/internet/04books.html?_r=1" target="_blank">example article</a>]. And for consumers, they no longer own what they buy. If you buy an ebook on the Kindle, it can be deleted without warning because you have not bought a book but the license to read a book on the Kindle for some unspecified amount of time[<a href="http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/some-e-books-are-more-equal-than-others/" target="_blank">example article</a>]. With the DCMA this has been extended to physical objects as well. You don't own your Wii/PS3/XBox360, you are merely licensed it and modifications to it are illegal[<a href="http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/tech/Cal-State-Student-Faces-10-Year-Prison-Term-for-Playing-with-Video-Games-52386872.html" target="_blank">example article</a>].
Not to mention the reverse lottery filesharing lawsuits by the RIAA, and infestation of DRM and rootkits in games that are harming the honest consumer and prevent resale of your "license".
Do you think copyright is worth it?
First off, a premise: Copyright <i>should</i> primarily exist to promote the progress of art and science. You're welcome to disagree, but I'll probably think you foolish, or greedy, or both. Also, if you consider yourself American, I might think you ignorant of your heritage:
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=U.S. Constitution)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (U.S. Constitution)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[Congress is granted the power ]To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I argue copyright is no longer fulfilling its purpose and is in fact detrimental to progress, as well as to the consumer in general. For scientific progress, Scientific Journals own the copyright on articles published in them, and high subscription fees must be paid in order to access these articles which are needed for peer review by other scientists. Doctors are seeing pharmaceutical companies trying to patent medical knowledge[<a href="http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_prior_art/2009/07/prometheus-labs-v-mayo-clinic-federal-circuit.html" target="_blank">example article</a>]. For art, very few things enter the public domain now. Scanned copies of older works are considered copyrighted even if the work itself is in the public domain[<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/technology/internet/04books.html?_r=1" target="_blank">example article</a>]. And for consumers, they no longer own what they buy. If you buy an ebook on the Kindle, it can be deleted without warning because you have not bought a book but the license to read a book on the Kindle for some unspecified amount of time[<a href="http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/some-e-books-are-more-equal-than-others/" target="_blank">example article</a>]. With the DCMA this has been extended to physical objects as well. You don't own your Wii/PS3/XBox360, you are merely licensed it and modifications to it are illegal[<a href="http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/tech/Cal-State-Student-Faces-10-Year-Prison-Term-for-Playing-with-Video-Games-52386872.html" target="_blank">example article</a>].
Not to mention the reverse lottery filesharing lawsuits by the RIAA, and infestation of DRM and rootkits in games that are harming the honest consumer and prevent resale of your "license".
Do you think copyright is worth it?
Comments
Quoting from that article:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As one of my readers noted, it’s like Barnes & Noble sneaking into our homes in the middle of the night, taking some books that we’ve been reading off our nightstands, and leaving us a check on the coffee table.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Amazon didn't even return the money those people paid - they "credited their accounts for the price." Sure, you can buy something else for that money, but only from Amazon. They essentially pulled a bait 'n switch in which you can choose whatever switch you like as long as it's something Amazon has and it isn't the bait.
For the sake of argument, I say having no copyright would be better than the system we have now.
Then I'll have to counter and ask rhetorically how would anyone be able to make money off an idea or invention?
Copyright was designed originally to provide a safe region of time to develop and market a new invention and to profit from it, thus providing a method for someone to make money, thus creating incentive to create new technology. Anyone who has ever sold anything of worth, even down to textbooks, would agree that copyright is important. It is what allows people to make a living off their creations.
How far that copyright system reaches is much more problematic, especially in the digital age we live in. I can now easily "copy" someone's work with a few clicks. Boom, digital information is copied. Due to this new element, it is much easier to move new designs around and to easily market and sell them. Or, reuse something for personal use. It's not surprising then that some groups try to extend copyright law to EVERY copy of a digital form, and have thought up interesting ways to enforce that ideology.
That being said, invasive DRM control that bogs down your system and data mines your actions without consent are infringing upon the rights of being able to freely use something you've purchased. We don't copyright someone's performance of a musical piece all the way into the memory of a listener's mind. Movies could be replayed as many times as you'd like at home to the family and friends. So, there is a limit to the long arm of copyright law.
In the end, it's a balance between ensuring one party can enjoy products with freedom (and deny pirates from exploiting it) while ensuring the other party can make money off of their creations.
One, that is not the goal of copyright. That is a means to the end of promoting science and the arts.
Two, do you thinking physicists and biologists would stop performing experiments if there was no copyright? Do you think photographers would stop taking pictures and bands would stop performing?
For the record I'm for a reasonable term of patent/copyright(~10-15 years), but again inventors would still tinker and actors would still act even if copyright were abolished. They wouldn't be able to catapult to stardom quite the same way, but ballerinas are used to not being able to copyright dances, painters' paintings, sculptors' sculptures, and all the other arts that don't happen to be writing, photography, music, or movie/tv acting.
Edit: end != means
No, but the companies that pay them would shut down, which means no expensive equipment, no test subjects, no labs to work in, no way to make a living, etc. It's hard to imagine that we'd have anything more complex than the Slap-Chop if nobody could make money off of their research. At the very least, we would never have anything that costs a large amount to develop. Unless of course you want the government to be in charge of everything, but that's an entirely different argument and I'll just leave it alone and say that space exploration and the Internet are about the only places where direct government intervention has worked better than letting the private sector figure things out.
Universities already employ most scientists. And companies would still need solutions to problems even if they can't patent everything they make. Things would be different, but it's not like people would stop needing the services of these specialists.
As for things that cost a large amount to develop, doesn't that simply mean they cost too much to develop at this point in time? If there is no copyright a lot of things will become cheaper to make. No licensing fees, smaller software costs, etc. The benefit of making something would be to have something no one else does. Eventually competitors would be able to catch up and you'd be forced to innovate or make your product cheaper, but there are still opportunities to make money.
In the endgame, consumers benefit more from the goods manufactured, but those goods can't be manufactured without the science behind them.
As much as I hate to say it because I don't want to seem like the type who just spits back out things I've heard elsewhere with no thought of my own (although I probably am such a person), the problem lately is the ability to create perfect copies cheaply and without much in the way of equipment or expertise. And the big beef we have is that now that we realize how easy it is to make copies, we're pissed about being exploited. Make no mistake, companies have been exploiting artists and consumers of artists' works since the idea of a copyright began.
And the fault causing all this grief rest squarely on the individuals who relinquish their rights in the first place, either by ignorance or apathy. Everything you create is by default copyrighted to you. You might have some trouble proving so in the courts unless you file for the copyright with whatever office you need to, but again that's on your shoulders. If you don't want your idea out there, you need to protect it.
No amount of new legislation is going to stop people from signing away their rights and dignity for a few quick bucks.
I would say the opposite. If we did that it would be all "hmm yes, shortening copyright is a good idea."*everyone pats self on back*
No one's given any good reasons for <i>not</i> abolishing copyright yet.
Then there's stuff like the GNU General Public License. Although the GPL is a license for creating free software and seems contradictive to copyright, it actually relies on copyright laws to work in the first place. Like Rob says, a license simply modifies the copyright you already have. If you make use of GPL-licensed code, part of the license is that you must also in turn license your own code under the GPL. And part of the GPL license is that if you release your program, you must also release or otherwise make available the source code so that whoever uses your program is able to modify it to their liking. If you do not follow these rules you are violating the GPL license and can be legally prosecuted. Without copyright law there would be no legal pressure.
Copyright reform seems like a good idea, but outright abolishment would be counter-productive.
The point is, given an environment where selling goods produced from the insights in intellectual works is a "success," we as animals and creatures of nature can only act according to natural selection. The key is that the <i>value</i> of art or science is determined by a mix of popularity and usefulness. The most intelligent designs in science, even taken to reality through engineering, will not succeed simply on their own merit if nobody likes and trusts them. Just ask Tesla.
Similarly, there have most likely been hundreds or thousands of bands that would have been real winners but nobody noticed them, so they died.
There was most likely a species that would have been better equipped to handle our current environment than us, but didn't make it out of the gate.
[edit]better to have only one better in a sentence
Your argument is basically "Government should sponsor the arts and sciences", correct? I mean, we as a collective is government by definition. So, yes, in an abstract way that could work (communism and socialism both have this idea to some extent). However we have yet to see it really work, however we do see capitalism work rather well to promote the arts and sciences. It is obviously far from perfect and government intervention does help in along (that is the point of copyrights and patents, a helping hand instead of a guiding hand).
On topic however:
I think that copyright/patents as we know them in the US (can't speak of other countries) are broken, there are serious issues with both systems (though they are different in each case). I also think the idea of 'information wants to be free' is also silly because it ultimately hinders the little guy as lolfighter pointed out. If I can produce copies of your work for less than you can, I win.
I was about to go into a bit about how I think that they should last for a reasonable amount of time (I actually think that the lifetime of the creator OR a minimum number of years, which ever is longer, is fairly reasonable). However that I have problems with the concept of a company suddenly losing the exclusive right to characters that they own. Then I did a quick check on trademark and realized that you can trademark characters so they don't enter the public domain, however things created using them do (aka, Disney owns Micky until they fail to renew the trademark on him, however old cartoons will enter the public domain).
So really, we just need to go back to a system where copyrights and patents last for a reasonable amount of time. The patent system needs a total overhaul though, but that is a different thread I guess.
Again, money is supposed to be an incentive to promote progress, it is not the end goal of copyright, merely the means.
Still, as a programmer, you can work for people making them software to solve their problems. You can't make one "killer app" that sets you for life, but you would still be able to sustain yourself. It would be a similar situation for musicians. Authors would be a little different. A lot of it would depend on what they actually wrote, but in the case of a novelist I could see fan sponsored development becoming big, similar to what UWE has done. You write a teaser or first novel, people who want to see the next part are encouraged to donate so you have more time to write.
<!--quoteo(post=1720686:date=Aug 4 2009, 10:01 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Aug 4 2009, 10:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1720686"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Then there's stuff like the GNU General Public License. Although the GPL is a license for creating free software and seems contradictive to copyright, it actually relies on copyright laws to work in the first place. Like Rob says, a license simply modifies the copyright you already have. If you make use of GPL-licensed code, part of the license is that you must also in turn license your own code under the GPL. And part of the GPL license is that if you release your program, you must also release or otherwise make available the source code so that whoever uses your program is able to modify it to their liking. If you do not follow these rules you are violating the GPL license and can be legally prosecuted. Without copyright law there would be no legal pressure.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very insightful comment, this is actually why <a href="http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/pirate-party-and-free-software" target="_blank">RMS made a statement encouraging the pirate party to change its stance on a 5 year copyright term</a>. The solution(in the case of no copyright) would be that source code must be available with everything the user runs on their machine. That way, all software is essentially GPL'd software.
<!--quoteo(post=1720742:date=Aug 5 2009, 09:01 AM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Aug 5 2009, 09:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1720742"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your argument is basically "Government should sponsor the arts and sciences", correct? I mean, we as a collective is government by definition. So, yes, in an abstract way that could work (communism and socialism both have this idea to some extent). However we have yet to see it really work, however we do see capitalism work rather well to promote the arts and sciences. It is obviously far from perfect and government intervention does help in along (that is the point of copyrights and patents, a helping hand instead of a guiding hand).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not necessarily the gov't. there are plenty of organizations with crowdsourced work or donations that exist today.
<!--quoteo(post=1720742:date=Aug 5 2009, 09:01 AM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Aug 5 2009, 09:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1720742"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->On topic however:
I think that copyright/patents as we know them in the US (can't speak of other countries) are broken, there are serious issues with both systems (though they are different in each case). I also think the idea of 'information wants to be free' is also silly because it ultimately hinders the little guy as lolfighter pointed out. If I can produce copies of your work for less than you can, I win.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're saying that like the little guy has much power to begin with. Everyone knows how badly publishers screw authors and record companies screw musicians. With the large legal departments backing up these industries you don't often see "little guys" win against the "big guys" even with the strict copyright laws that exist now.
"Information wants to be free" empowers "the little guy" more than hinders. The little guy now has free access to most of the tools "the big guys" have. Also producing copies for less isn't the only way to compete. You can also improve your product. If you're the author you can sell autographed copies, work on commission, provide insight on the inner workings of your product that no one else has(assuming your product isn't trivial). Not to mention having a "big guy" promote your product will still bring you more sales through exposure even if they aren't legally required to make a deal with you before hand and give you a cut. Because distribution is cheap anyone can compete in that arena. The original author/artist/programmer will have unique advantages though.
<span style='color:#000000;background:#000000'>Spoiler tags for OOC: I agree that no copyright would be a bad system for small independent authors, artists, and programmers because it would remove the admittedly nominal protections they have against abuse. I think that they would still be able to find work and offer competitive products though.</span>
Still, as a programmer, you can work for people making them software to solve their problems. You can't make one "killer app" that sets you for life, but you would still be able to sustain yourself. It would be a similar situation for musicians. Authors would be a little different. A lot of it would depend on what they actually wrote, but in the case of a novelist I could see fan sponsored development becoming big, similar to what UWE has done. You write a teaser or first novel, people who want to see the next part are encouraged to donate so you have more time to write.
...
"Information wants to be free" empowers "the little guy" more than hinders. The little guy now has free access to most of the tools "the big guys" have. Also producing copies for less isn't the only way to compete. You can also improve your product. If you're the author you can sell autographed copies, work on commission, provide insight on the inner workings of your product that no one else has(assuming your product isn't trivial). Not to mention having a "big guy" promote your product will still bring you more sales through exposure even if they aren't legally required to make a deal with you before hand and give you a cut. Because distribution is cheap anyone can compete in that arena. The original author/artist/programmer will have unique advantages though.
<span style='color:#000000;background:#000000'>Spoiler tags for OOC: I agree that no copyright would be a bad system for small independent authors, artists, and programmers because it would remove the admittedly nominal protections they have against abuse. I think that they would still be able to find work and offer competitive products though.</span><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What tools are these? As I said earlier, big companies can screw authors because the authors sign over their rights to the big companies. Woe be a big company that sells your work without the proper rights and you can prove it because you've filed with the Library of Congress or the Patent Office. You could find a young lawyer willing to make his/her carrier out of such a case.
A contract is a contract. If you agree to fork over your next 30 songs to a record label, then that's what you do. If you don't last long enough to make those 30 songs, too bad.
The same is true for me as a programmer. I can't retain rights to the software I create for my company. I signed a contract, so it's not mine. It also says in the contract that they can take anything I create on my own time, but there's no way any court will actually allow them to do that if my hobby work has nothing to do with my work work. And if a court did, I can counter-sue or protest or any number of things.
I don't see how copyright law can get any better than placing the ownership of a work with its author at the time of conception. The state shouldn't manage its protection for you; that just makes it more complicated to sell the copyrights if you want to.
Whatever happens to relate to your field. In the case of graphic artists, every image is fair game and the tools to create them(photoshop, operating system) are legally available. As an engineer, you no longer have to worry about patents on certain components and can make them yourself as needed(assuming you have the resources).
<!--quoteo(post=1720765:date=Aug 5 2009, 11:01 AM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rob @ Aug 5 2009, 11:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1720765"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't see how copyright law can get any better than placing the ownership of a work with its author at the time of conception. The state shouldn't manage its protection for you; that just makes it more complicated to sell the copyrights if you want to.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't really understand this argument as the sentences above seem to refute it rather than support it. Giving authors the "rights" to their works at time of conception has not worked in practice because these rights are always abused by "the big guys" anyway so we should keep them?
What about Printing/CD/DVD presses? Distribution channels? Advertising (no, you don't profit from company X advertising your book because they have renamed it ABD instead of GHJ)?
And who says that you can get your hands on photoshop? Since adobe can't sue people for pirating their work they have instead implemented VERY draconian DRM (having all that money does help, don't it?).
You're right, that business model wouldn't work. You'd have to find supporters for your project along the way instead of trying to recoup all of your costs at the end. That doesn't mean there's no way to get paid for making games without copyright.
<!--quoteo(post=1720775:date=Aug 5 2009, 12:11 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Aug 5 2009, 12:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1720775"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What about Printing/CD/DVD presses? Distribution channels?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What's the problem with them? I'm not saying the "small guy" would be on equal footing as the "big guy", that's just pure socialism for the sake of it. Just that a lot of barriers for the "small guy" would be removed.
<!--quoteo(post=1720775:date=Aug 5 2009, 12:11 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Aug 5 2009, 12:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1720775"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Advertising (no, you don't profit from company X advertising your book because they have renamed it ABD instead of GHJ)?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If it was the same book, those who care about such things would notice. Those who don't care are probably copyright infringing stuff now with all of the copyright laws.
<!--quoteo(post=1720775:date=Aug 5 2009, 12:11 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Aug 5 2009, 12:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1720775"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And who says that you can get your hands on photoshop? Since adobe can't sue people for pirating their work they have instead implemented VERY draconian DRM (having all that money does help, don't it?).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Indeed, that's why source code is important, as mentioned above. Would the consumer accept such draconian DRM? Or would support oriented models like RedHat be more supportable and desirable in a no copyright world.
What's the problem with them? I'm not saying the "small guy" would be on equal footing as the "big guy", that's just pure socialism for the sake of it. Just that a lot of barriers for the "small guy" would be removed.
If it was the same book, those who care about such things would notice. Those who don't care are probably copyright infringing stuff now with all of the copyright laws.
Indeed, that's why source code is important, as mentioned above. Would the consumer accept such draconian DRM? Or would support oriented models like RedHat be more supportable and desirable in a no copyright world.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you are falling into the trap of assuming that the majority of people are anything like you or I. They really aren't. Sure, you and I can pirate anything we want, support developers of projects we anticipate, etc etc.
However the majority of people want things now, they want them to just work, they don't care about free as in beer vs free as in speech, they wouldn't know wth to DO with source code if they got it, they don't care about supporting the little guy if they can get exactly the same thing with less work and for less $$ from XYZ Corp.
Sure, RedHat corporate Linux works great as a support oriented service. But what support do you NEED for Photoshop? Or NS2? Or the newest album by Mindless Self Indulgence? Or the latest book by David Wong?
However the majority of people want things now, they want them to just work, they don't care about free as in beer vs free as in speech, they wouldn't know wth to DO with source code if they got it, they don't care about supporting the little guy if they can get exactly the same thing with less work and for less $$ from XYZ Corp.
Sure, RedHat corporate Linux works great as a support oriented service. But what support do you NEED for Photoshop? Or NS2? Or the newest album by Mindless Self Indulgence? Or the latest book by David Wong?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you're falling into the trap that things have to be exactly like they are in order to work at all. You seem to be focusing on software here so I'll angle my rebuttals for that. The average consumer doesn't have to care about open source or even program to get the benefits from it. If DRM got that much crazier(as you previously suggested) people would notice DRM and it would factor into their decisions. If they want it now, they'll buy it now. If they don't need it now and can wait, or don't think the DRM is worth it they'll fund a "better" effort. This model is different from the majority of business now because copyright <i>exists</i>. If copyright didn't exist, there are business models that exist to fulfill consumer needs without relying on copyright.
I've all ready explained how music, authors, and games would continue to be made even if copyright didn't exist. In the specific case of Photoshop you could hire their developers to make plugins/improvements based on your needs. You're right they probably couldn't maintain themselves selling the same product over and over again without improvement. That's the point though, progress.
Such as?
Such as getting support as you go along. Or Having interested parties contribute to development in the interest of seeing the finished product. Or changing your business model to leverage free game business models that currently exist(item shops, subscription based servers, cosmetic perks, etc)?
And the game I've worked so hard to create so I can then fun it with microtransactions - if anybody manages to launch a competing version of it I can't stop them because I don't have the copyright to the stuff I write.
I've heard a lot of lofty idealism, but still nothing concrete.
And the game I've worked so hard to create so I can then fun it with microtransactions - if anybody manages to launch a competing version of it I can't stop them because I don't have the copyright to the stuff I write.
I've heard a lot of lofty idealism, but still nothing concrete.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Flayra was living off of Constellation donations for a while. ToadyOne is working full time on DwarfFortress through supporter donations. NS2 needed more funding to finish so they opened up preorders with alpha/beta access, there's no reason other people couldn't do the same. There are plenty of concrete things you can do as long as you're not set on making all of your revenue all at once for one project utilizing one method.
Flayra lived on Constellation <i>after</i> it was proven that there was something worthwhile. Meaning people donated know that it wasn't charity so much as reward. Preordering NS2 implies that you will not get it for free. Without copyright, such a concept wouldn't work.