Ok, I concede that intellectual property is unique. That still doesn't answer the question of why it HAS to be different than physical property. In some cases you can make a very good argument that it prevents further innovation, in which case I would agree that it should have a limited time frame for ownership. I don't think that being able to make an exact copy of someones work falls into this category. So to me the default position should be that we grant unlimited ownership.
If people can not access copies of old works they can not create new works because they would not be able to gain inspiration and insight in to what makes something enjoyable.
Well they can, but they'd be incredibly lame.
---Thomas Jefferson
No one is denying access, simply requiring compensation for it. As has already been stated, you could add a clause about not actively distributing if you are really that concerned about someone deciding they just don't like society having their books and saying eff you all, no more copies. The most likely outcome is what Disney is doing now, where their content is very widespread and is being routinely distributed. I'm not seeing the huge drop-off in cultural advancement because they continue to make money, and because their work isn't as distributed as it could be.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
If you can't handle the idea that society as a whole might someday freely benefit from your labor, after you've had ample opportunity (extending your entire lifetime and perhaps beyond) to be compensated for it, then
A) you are a raging asshole and you should consider an exciting career in over-the-road trucking instead
You aren't born with copy rights, the way you are with rights to life, expression, or exclusive and finite properties.
They're given. By the people. As an exchange.
I don't believe that you are born with any rights. You only have the rights the state will enforce, to the extent they will enforce them. I don't need to booby trap my car because I am confident that the state will use its monopoly on the use of force to protect it, for as long as I have it. By contrast, we are left to self help (drm) when the state fails to adequately protect our rights in ip. And then eventually you lose state protection all together. I don't we why that should be the case.
Incidentally, in the state of nature you can copy books, but you can also steal cars, and I see no distinction between the two re:deservingness of protection.
The fact that if I steal your car, you no longer have that car, is not a significant distinction to you? If I squat in your home, you can no longer occupy that space. If I take your car, you can no longer drive it. If I break your arm, you can no longer use it. But if I copy your book...there's another copy of your book.
That's why I keep harping on the fact that this "property" is not exclusive.
In a state of nature, you at least have a natural right and incentive to protect your physical possessions by force. I come to steal your car, you can defend it physically. You publish your book, and you give up that ability. You have no feasible manner in which to hunt down every copy and ensure no more are made. Because you gave up control of it.
I did, by saying I was not making an economic argument. My position is based on fairness and justice. And the deprivation is of the rightholder's time. I could have lounged around but I wrote a book instead. In exchange, I demand compensation for my choice to produce. You read my book without compensation, and have the benefit of my time and your time. That is manifestly unfair IMO.
You have decades to be compensated for your time. You were compensated for your choice to produce. You are demanding that others are compensated for your choice to produce, in perpetuity. For a product that does not degrade. If you build a house, continuing work has to go into maintaining that house. Same for a railroad empire. But a book? All that has to happen is people making copies...you need do nothing to maintain it. The audience will, theoretically, do all that work for you.
So once you've been compensated throughout your lifetime (or whatever period) you are no longer producing. You produced. Once.
You are suggesting that somebody (in 500 years it won't be you) be compensated, in perpetuity, for a single act of work. Only with intellectual property is that even possible. You don't see a distinction?
If not, you are being purposefully obtuse, or your brain is straight-up broken. Either way, you are once again the silliest of geese.
What about a piece of land? That land will be there seemingly forever. It costs the owner of that land nothing to rent the land (not a house/building/whatever, but the land) out for use. This is something that is done. And everyone agrees that the ability to rent this land out forever, without putting in any maintenance yourself, is something that should be perpetual.
Land is not Intellectual Property.
If you rent out land to someone, your ability to use it has decreased, because you've ceded that right to the renter, with certain controls, for compensation for your loss.
If I publish a book about Vampires going to war with an unholy moon god who happens to look like Colonel Sanders with the body of a Fist of the North Star brawler, no matter how many people have a copy, I lose nothing. I still have that idea, I can still distribute it, I can still do more things with that idea.
Ok, I concede that intellectual property is unique. That still doesn't answer the question of why it HAS to be different than physical property. In some cases you can make a very good argument that it prevents further innovation, in which case I would agree that it should have a limited time frame for ownership. I don't think that being able to make an exact copy of someones work falls into this category. So to me the default position should be that we grant unlimited ownership.
The last part is I guess only partly true. I'm not 100% convinced that it would be possible to even have this limited copyright be perpetual without having some affect on further innovation, but it seems like it is, and I haven't seen any conclusive arguments that it isn't. I don't see why disney doing their vault thing has prevented anyone from creating new art based on their childhood influences.
Because it is inherently different.
Intellectual property is an idea. You can't be deprived of it by giving it to someone else.
Swordman McGee. He's a guy made entirely out of magical, floating swords, with a vague, muscular humanoid aura surrounding them. Also he sounds like Tom Selleck.
You now have the idea of Swordman McGee. I have given you this. But I still have it too. I have lost absolutely nothing relating to Swordman McGee, the idea, by giving it to you. You can do with it as you will and I can do with it as I will.
So it's different. Is it your position that I have to lose something in order for it to be fair for me to be compensated? The idea of copyright isn't under debate here. We all agree that it's a good idea. I have an idea, I lose nothing if you copy it infinity times, but I can still own the copyright for X years that makes that illegal. I'm just asking why our default position should be that intellectual property, unlike physical property, has a limited ownership. In some cases it's because unlimited ownership of an idea stifles further innovation. Thus the limited copyright. But what if this isn't the case? What if letting no one else besides Disney make/distribute mickey mouse cartoons doesn't prevent future generations from making new cartoons that are exciting? Why should they lose their ownership of that character?
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Like for all the hand wringing about starving artists I'm not exactly clear on how future starving artists are supposed to access copies of anything made in getting on the last hundred years if they can't even pony up the cash for ramen.
Are they just supposed to create great works all tabula rasa style? Are you trying to pioneer a new movement?
No one is denying access, simply requiring compensation for it.
And if someone can't afford compensation then...
There's probably an argument to be made that you could get it from a library.
Except for the fact that libraries are woefully underfunded and access to their collected works are ludicrously limited in limited amounts of space for physical products, the fact if someone checks one of said physical products out then you can't get ahold of it until it's returned and that even digital collections are now being enforced with artificial scarcity all because the distributors fear the ability of people to just go to the library to get their media so happy waiting for that other person to "finish" and "return"* that audio book you want to listen to
*Hilariously, the DRM on these things are terrible in the most wonderful of ways. I will not elaborate why, as you can probably guess.
No one is denying access, simply requiring compensation for it.
And if someone can't afford compensation then...
Then they wont be able to buy it. Not seeing the problem here. I can't afford to buy every video game that comes out. That doesn't prevent me from creating new exciting games in the future.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
So it's different. Is it your position that I have to lose something in order for it to be fair for me to be compensated?
Actually, yes.
Either time, property, etc. You shouldn't expect to be compensated if you aren't losing anything, that's not compensation...it's a gift.
The idea of copyright isn't under debate here. We all agree that it's a good idea.
Well, it kinda is. It's just that most of us agree that the justification for it is pretty strong.
I have an idea, I lose nothing if you copy it infinity times, but I can still own the copyright for X years that makes that illegal. I'm just asking why our default position should be that intellectual property, unlike physical property, has a limited ownership.
No, the default idea is that once an idea is shared, it is free. That is the default.
We are allowing that it is unfortunately necessary to grant limited "ownership" such that artists have some chance of compensation, for the purpose of encouraging creation. Not because you deserve it. I have a hard time saying that any given artist "deserves" compensation for decades for a single act of work (which may be of substantial duration, say writing a book, but is still a single act).
In some cases it's because unlimited ownership of an idea stifles further innovation. Thus the limited copyright. But what if this isn't the case? What if letting no one else besides Disney make/distribute mickey mouse cartoons doesn't prevent future generations from making new cartoons that are exciting? Why should they lose their ownership of that character?
No, it's that limited ownership encourages creation. That's literally the only reason we grant it. Because a world without art would kinda suck. Otherwise it would be "play for your supper, or be a fucking plumber."
No one is denying access, simply requiring compensation for it.
And if someone can't afford compensation then...
Then they wont be able to buy it.
Then you will deny access.
How are poor artists supposed to learn from past works in order to create new ones in your system where they aren't allowed access to past materials on the basis that they are poor?
Or are you of the opinion only people with enough money should get to be artists?
You aren't born with copy rights, the way you are with rights to life, expression, or exclusive and finite properties.
They're given. By the people. As an exchange.
I don't believe that you are born with any rights. You only have the rights the state will enforce, to the extent they will enforce them. I don't need to booby trap my car because I am confident that the state will use its monopoly on the use of force to protect it, for as long as I have it. By contrast, we are left to self help (drm) when the state fails to adequately protect our rights in ip. And then eventually you lose state protection all together. I don't we why that should be the case.
Incidentally, in the state of nature you can copy books, but you can also steal cars, and I see no distinction between the two re:deservingness of protection.
The fact that if I steal your car, you no longer have that car, is not a significant distinction to you? If I squat in your home, you can no longer occupy that space. If I take your car, you can no longer drive it. If I break your arm, you can no longer use it. But if I copy your book...there's another copy of your book.
That's why I keep harping on the fact that this "property" is not exclusive.
In a state of nature, you at least have a natural right and incentive to protect your physical possessions by force. I come to steal your car, you can defend it physically. You publish your book, and you give up that ability. You have no feasible manner in which to hunt down every copy and ensure no more are made. Because you gave up control of it.
I did, by saying I was not making an economic argument. My position is based on fairness and justice. And the deprivation is of the rightholder's time. I could have lounged around but I wrote a book instead. In exchange, I demand compensation for my choice to produce. You read my book without compensation, and have the benefit of my time and your time. That is manifestly unfair IMO.
You have decades to be compensated for your time. You were compensated for your choice to produce. You are demanding that others are compensated for your choice to produce, in perpetuity. For a product that does not degrade. If you build a house, continuing work has to go into maintaining that house. Same for a railroad empire. But a book? All that has to happen is people making copies...you need do nothing to maintain it. The audience will, theoretically, do all that work for you.
So once you've been compensated throughout your lifetime (or whatever period) you are no longer producing. You produced. Once.
You are suggesting that somebody (in 500 years it won't be you) be compensated, in perpetuity, for a single act of work. Only with intellectual property is that even possible. You don't see a distinction?
If not, you are being purposefully obtuse, or your brain is straight-up broken. Either way, you are once again the silliest of geese.
What about a piece of land? That land will be there seemingly forever. It costs the owner of that land nothing to rent the land (not a house/building/whatever, but the land) out for use. This is something that is done. And everyone agrees that the ability to rent this land out forever, without putting in any maintenance yourself, is something that should be perpetual.
Land is not Intellectual Property.
If you rent out land to someone, your ability to use it has decreased, because you've ceded that right to the renter, with certain controls, for compensation for your loss.
If I publish a book about Vampires going to war with an unholy moon god who happens to look like Colonel Sanders with the body of a Fist of the North Star brawler, no matter how many people have a copy, I lose nothing. I still have that idea, I can still distribute it, I can still do more things with that idea.
Ok, I concede that intellectual property is unique. That still doesn't answer the question of why it HAS to be different than physical property. In some cases you can make a very good argument that it prevents further innovation, in which case I would agree that it should have a limited time frame for ownership. I don't think that being able to make an exact copy of someones work falls into this category. So to me the default position should be that we grant unlimited ownership.
The last part is I guess only partly true. I'm not 100% convinced that it would be possible to even have this limited copyright be perpetual without having some affect on further innovation, but it seems like it is, and I haven't seen any conclusive arguments that it isn't. I don't see why disney doing their vault thing has prevented anyone from creating new art based on their childhood influences.
Because it is inherently different.
Intellectual property is an idea. You can't be deprived of it by giving it to someone else.
Swordman McGee. He's a guy made entirely out of magical, floating swords, with a vague, muscular humanoid aura surrounding them. Also he sounds like Tom Selleck.
You now have the idea of Swordman McGee. I have given you this. But I still have it too. I have lost absolutely nothing relating to Swordman McGee, the idea, by giving it to you. You can do with it as you will and I can do with it as I will.
So it's different. Is it your position that I have to lose something in order for it to be fair for me to be compensated? The idea of copyright isn't under debate here. We all agree that it's a good idea. I have an idea, I lose nothing if you copy it infinity times, but I can still own the copyright for X years that makes that illegal. I'm just asking why our default position should be that intellectual property, unlike physical property, has a limited ownership. In some cases it's because unlimited ownership of an idea stifles further innovation. Thus the limited copyright. But what if this isn't the case? What if letting no one else besides Disney make/distribute mickey mouse cartoons doesn't prevent future generations from making new cartoons that are exciting? Why should they lose their ownership of that character?
Because Disney can still distribute Mickey Mouse to their heart's content. Disney can still make Mickey Mouse cartoons until the company fades into the annals of forgotten history.
Them losing exclusive control of Mickey Mouse does little than maybe "harm the brand," but I'm fairly certain if all the images of Mickey Mouse doing every sex act you can imagine floating around the net haven't done that, the public being able to make their own Mickey Mouse things won't either.
Even if you want to get into, say, merchandising, Disney, as the culturally recognized House of Mouse, can still level the label of being "Official" Mickey Mouse merchandise on the stuff they have made.
Is it your position that I have to lose something in order for it to be fair for me to be compensated?
Is it your position that the only possible way for something to be fair is to give someone infinite money?
You aren't making arguments your just stating random contradictory things. My position is that intellectual property should be treated the same as physical property unless there is significant evidence that it is causing social harm. I have yet to see any arguments about why I need to be able to distribute moby dick on a massive scale without providing compensation for whomever herman mellvile passed his rights to through the generations.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Is it your position that I have to lose something in order for it to be fair for me to be compensated?
Is it your position that the only possible way for something to be fair is to give someone infinite money?
You aren't making arguments your just stating random contradictory things. My position is that intellectual property should be treated the same as physical property unless there is significant evidence that it is causing social harm. I have yet to see any arguments about why I need to be able to distribute moby dick on a massive scale without providing compensation for whomever herman mellvile passed his rights to through the generations.
I would argue that having all of creation, back as far as the earliest cave paintings, behind a paywall would create a social harm.
But that's irrelevant.
Because there's no property involved. There's a restriction of actions. My action, that being the action of creating a copy. You are looking to restrict it.
Please explain the justification for restricting that action for the benefit of somebody whose grandchildren are now long dead.
No one is denying access, simply requiring compensation for it.
And if someone can't afford compensation then...
Then they wont be able to buy it. Not seeing the problem here. I can't afford to buy every video game that comes out. That doesn't prevent me from creating new exciting games in the future.
I'd argue it does.
I wasn't able to afford the Takeshi Kovacs trilogy. I lucked out and got them from the library. They made a massive impact on my thinking.
I guarantee that there is a video game, multiple video games, that would have the same impact on you.
[of course, there's probably the argument of negative exposure creating an influential effect on the artist, but I have no idea how that'd work beyond a vague concept of "maybe this is a thing?"]
Disney being able to take advantage of public domain allowed for them to employ, today, 166,000 people. Public domain led to that, not their fucking strangle hold on congress.
No one is denying access, simply requiring compensation for it.
And if someone can't afford compensation then...
Then they wont be able to buy it.
Then you will deny access.
How are poor artists supposed to learn from past works in order to create new ones in your system where they aren't allowed access to past materials on the basis that they are poor?
Or are you of the opinion only people with enough money should get to be artists?
Should we let poor artists into every movie for free because not seeing them is denying them the opportunity to learn? Why does copyright exists at all then? Surely the best thing to do would be to distribute all works as massively/cheaply as possible.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
And this is only talking about fiction and entertainment. None of this touches on the wonderful funtimes games of our current Copyright scheme effect on academic & research papers, documentaries, non-fiction books, etc.
No one is denying access, simply requiring compensation for it.
And if someone can't afford compensation then...
Then they wont be able to buy it.
Then you will deny access.
How are poor artists supposed to learn from past works in order to create new ones in your system where they aren't allowed access to past materials on the basis that they are poor?
Or are you of the opinion only people with enough money should get to be artists?
Should we let poor artists into every movie for free because not seeing them is denying them the opportunity to learn? Why does copyright exists at all then? Surely the best thing to do would be to distribute all works as massively/cheaply as possible.
Yes, actually it would be.
The only reason we don't distribute them as massively/cheaply as possible (or rather allow people to do so) is so that artists can make a living. Not so their grandchildren can exercise "property" rights.
Also, seats in a theater are a finite supply, and that theater costs money and effort to run. But if they simply wanted to make a copy on disc....
Seriously, go look up the shit surrounding Academic and Research Papers, then come back and talk about perpetual copyright and treating IP like a physical object.
You aren't born with copy rights, the way you are with rights to life, expression, or exclusive and finite properties.
They're given. By the people. As an exchange.
I don't believe that you are born with any rights. You only have the rights the state will enforce, to the extent they will enforce them. I don't need to booby trap my car because I am confident that the state will use its monopoly on the use of force to protect it, for as long as I have it. By contrast, we are left to self help (drm) when the state fails to adequately protect our rights in ip. And then eventually you lose state protection all together. I don't we why that should be the case.
Incidentally, in the state of nature you can copy books, but you can also steal cars, and I see no distinction between the two re:deservingness of protection.
The fact that if I steal your car, you no longer have that car, is not a significant distinction to you? If I squat in your home, you can no longer occupy that space. If I take your car, you can no longer drive it. If I break your arm, you can no longer use it. But if I copy your book...there's another copy of your book.
That's why I keep harping on the fact that this "property" is not exclusive.
In a state of nature, you at least have a natural right and incentive to protect your physical possessions by force. I come to steal your car, you can defend it physically. You publish your book, and you give up that ability. You have no feasible manner in which to hunt down every copy and ensure no more are made. Because you gave up control of it.
I did, by saying I was not making an economic argument. My position is based on fairness and justice. And the deprivation is of the rightholder's time. I could have lounged around but I wrote a book instead. In exchange, I demand compensation for my choice to produce. You read my book without compensation, and have the benefit of my time and your time. That is manifestly unfair IMO.
You have decades to be compensated for your time. You were compensated for your choice to produce. You are demanding that others are compensated for your choice to produce, in perpetuity. For a product that does not degrade. If you build a house, continuing work has to go into maintaining that house. Same for a railroad empire. But a book? All that has to happen is people making copies...you need do nothing to maintain it. The audience will, theoretically, do all that work for you.
So once you've been compensated throughout your lifetime (or whatever period) you are no longer producing. You produced. Once.
You are suggesting that somebody (in 500 years it won't be you) be compensated, in perpetuity, for a single act of work. Only with intellectual property is that even possible. You don't see a distinction?
If not, you are being purposefully obtuse, or your brain is straight-up broken. Either way, you are once again the silliest of geese.
What about a piece of land? That land will be there seemingly forever. It costs the owner of that land nothing to rent the land (not a house/building/whatever, but the land) out for use. This is something that is done. And everyone agrees that the ability to rent this land out forever, without putting in any maintenance yourself, is something that should be perpetual.
Land is not Intellectual Property.
If you rent out land to someone, your ability to use it has decreased, because you've ceded that right to the renter, with certain controls, for compensation for your loss.
If I publish a book about Vampires going to war with an unholy moon god who happens to look like Colonel Sanders with the body of a Fist of the North Star brawler, no matter how many people have a copy, I lose nothing. I still have that idea, I can still distribute it, I can still do more things with that idea.
Ok, I concede that intellectual property is unique. That still doesn't answer the question of why it HAS to be different than physical property. In some cases you can make a very good argument that it prevents further innovation, in which case I would agree that it should have a limited time frame for ownership. I don't think that being able to make an exact copy of someones work falls into this category. So to me the default position should be that we grant unlimited ownership.
The last part is I guess only partly true. I'm not 100% convinced that it would be possible to even have this limited copyright be perpetual without having some affect on further innovation, but it seems like it is, and I haven't seen any conclusive arguments that it isn't. I don't see why disney doing their vault thing has prevented anyone from creating new art based on their childhood influences.
Because it is inherently different.
Intellectual property is an idea. You can't be deprived of it by giving it to someone else.
Swordman McGee. He's a guy made entirely out of magical, floating swords, with a vague, muscular humanoid aura surrounding them. Also he sounds like Tom Selleck.
You now have the idea of Swordman McGee. I have given you this. But I still have it too. I have lost absolutely nothing relating to Swordman McGee, the idea, by giving it to you. You can do with it as you will and I can do with it as I will.
Except that intellectual property is not an idea. It's an expression of an idea, which is something very different.
Surely the best thing to do would be to distribute all works as massively/cheaply as possible.
Actually, let's revisit this.
I would hope that most of us, absent concerns about artists being able to eat, would agree that this would be the best thing. That a society where I can, a la Star Trek, simply say "computer, play The Beatles" and have the Beatles come out, is a better society. Where I don't need to worry about spending finite funds to buy finite albums, or whether I can afford to watch a single movie, etc. That we would be richer as a society if all entertainment were completely free. That scarcity kinda sucks, and that when not absolutely necessary (or inherent) we shouldn't create it.
This goes back to the "if I could copy your cheeseburger, and we could both eat it, you're fucking right I would" statement.
If the idea that after a lifetime of capitalizing on your work, that on your deathbed you would be bothered by the idea of people being able to freely enjoy your art in this manner, well...
A) you are a raging asshole and you should consider an exciting career in over-the-road trucking instead
You aren't born with copy rights, the way you are with rights to life, expression, or exclusive and finite properties.
They're given. By the people. As an exchange.
I don't believe that you are born with any rights. You only have the rights the state will enforce, to the extent they will enforce them. I don't need to booby trap my car because I am confident that the state will use its monopoly on the use of force to protect it, for as long as I have it. By contrast, we are left to self help (drm) when the state fails to adequately protect our rights in ip. And then eventually you lose state protection all together. I don't we why that should be the case.
Incidentally, in the state of nature you can copy books, but you can also steal cars, and I see no distinction between the two re:deservingness of protection.
The fact that if I steal your car, you no longer have that car, is not a significant distinction to you? If I squat in your home, you can no longer occupy that space. If I take your car, you can no longer drive it. If I break your arm, you can no longer use it. But if I copy your book...there's another copy of your book.
That's why I keep harping on the fact that this "property" is not exclusive.
In a state of nature, you at least have a natural right and incentive to protect your physical possessions by force. I come to steal your car, you can defend it physically. You publish your book, and you give up that ability. You have no feasible manner in which to hunt down every copy and ensure no more are made. Because you gave up control of it.
I did, by saying I was not making an economic argument. My position is based on fairness and justice. And the deprivation is of the rightholder's time. I could have lounged around but I wrote a book instead. In exchange, I demand compensation for my choice to produce. You read my book without compensation, and have the benefit of my time and your time. That is manifestly unfair IMO.
You have decades to be compensated for your time. You were compensated for your choice to produce. You are demanding that others are compensated for your choice to produce, in perpetuity. For a product that does not degrade. If you build a house, continuing work has to go into maintaining that house. Same for a railroad empire. But a book? All that has to happen is people making copies...you need do nothing to maintain it. The audience will, theoretically, do all that work for you.
So once you've been compensated throughout your lifetime (or whatever period) you are no longer producing. You produced. Once.
You are suggesting that somebody (in 500 years it won't be you) be compensated, in perpetuity, for a single act of work. Only with intellectual property is that even possible. You don't see a distinction?
If not, you are being purposefully obtuse, or your brain is straight-up broken. Either way, you are once again the silliest of geese.
What about a piece of land? That land will be there seemingly forever. It costs the owner of that land nothing to rent the land (not a house/building/whatever, but the land) out for use. This is something that is done. And everyone agrees that the ability to rent this land out forever, without putting in any maintenance yourself, is something that should be perpetual.
Land is not Intellectual Property.
If you rent out land to someone, your ability to use it has decreased, because you've ceded that right to the renter, with certain controls, for compensation for your loss.
If I publish a book about Vampires going to war with an unholy moon god who happens to look like Colonel Sanders with the body of a Fist of the North Star brawler, no matter how many people have a copy, I lose nothing. I still have that idea, I can still distribute it, I can still do more things with that idea.
Ok, I concede that intellectual property is unique. That still doesn't answer the question of why it HAS to be different than physical property. In some cases you can make a very good argument that it prevents further innovation, in which case I would agree that it should have a limited time frame for ownership. I don't think that being able to make an exact copy of someones work falls into this category. So to me the default position should be that we grant unlimited ownership.
The last part is I guess only partly true. I'm not 100% convinced that it would be possible to even have this limited copyright be perpetual without having some affect on further innovation, but it seems like it is, and I haven't seen any conclusive arguments that it isn't. I don't see why disney doing their vault thing has prevented anyone from creating new art based on their childhood influences.
Because it is inherently different.
Intellectual property is an idea. You can't be deprived of it by giving it to someone else.
Swordman McGee. He's a guy made entirely out of magical, floating swords, with a vague, muscular humanoid aura surrounding them. Also he sounds like Tom Selleck.
You now have the idea of Swordman McGee. I have given you this. But I still have it too. I have lost absolutely nothing relating to Swordman McGee, the idea, by giving it to you. You can do with it as you will and I can do with it as I will.
Except that intellectual property is not an idea. It's an expression of an idea, which is something very different.
So if others can work with the characters I create, I can't?
If others can freely acquire my work, I can't still distribute copies myself to those who would pay me for it?
I would say we need a limited time for Copyright. The 14 years from creation+ 14-year renewal sounds good. But I honestly do not see how I lose anything from my works going into the public domain.
Should we let poor artists into every movie for free because not seeing them is denying them the opportunity to learn?
No but then I never argued for an extreme so don't need to justify one.
So I can restrict access to intellectual property but only on the terms that you define as acceptable. Ok.
No, you can restrict the act of copying, but only on terms that we define as acceptable. Let's be clear what you're restricting, here.
You gave up restricting access when you published. With the first copy sold. I can show it to a friend, or any number of friends, with no further permission from you.
I would say we need a limited time for Copyright. The 14 years from creation+ 14-year renewal sounds good. But I honestly do not see how I lose anything from my works going into the public domain.
You lost the ability, realistically, to earn revenue from the resale of copies of those works.
Let's not pretend that, in many cases, that is not a significant amount of revenue. In a few edge cases, we're talking "mansions, pools, and jets" revenue.
14/14 is probably too short. But really, I don't think we could even constructively discuss potential lengths until we get the silly geese arguing for perpetuity, until the heat death of the universe to realize that they are the silliest geese to ever goose.
You aren't born with copy rights, the way you are with rights to life, expression, or exclusive and finite properties.
They're given. By the people. As an exchange.
I don't believe that you are born with any rights. You only have the rights the state will enforce, to the extent they will enforce them. I don't need to booby trap my car because I am confident that the state will use its monopoly on the use of force to protect it, for as long as I have it. By contrast, we are left to self help (drm) when the state fails to adequately protect our rights in ip. And then eventually you lose state protection all together. I don't we why that should be the case.
Incidentally, in the state of nature you can copy books, but you can also steal cars, and I see no distinction between the two re:deservingness of protection.
The fact that if I steal your car, you no longer have that car, is not a significant distinction to you? If I squat in your home, you can no longer occupy that space. If I take your car, you can no longer drive it. If I break your arm, you can no longer use it. But if I copy your book...there's another copy of your book.
That's why I keep harping on the fact that this "property" is not exclusive.
In a state of nature, you at least have a natural right and incentive to protect your physical possessions by force. I come to steal your car, you can defend it physically. You publish your book, and you give up that ability. You have no feasible manner in which to hunt down every copy and ensure no more are made. Because you gave up control of it.
I did, by saying I was not making an economic argument. My position is based on fairness and justice. And the deprivation is of the rightholder's time. I could have lounged around but I wrote a book instead. In exchange, I demand compensation for my choice to produce. You read my book without compensation, and have the benefit of my time and your time. That is manifestly unfair IMO.
You have decades to be compensated for your time. You were compensated for your choice to produce. You are demanding that others are compensated for your choice to produce, in perpetuity. For a product that does not degrade. If you build a house, continuing work has to go into maintaining that house. Same for a railroad empire. But a book? All that has to happen is people making copies...you need do nothing to maintain it. The audience will, theoretically, do all that work for you.
So once you've been compensated throughout your lifetime (or whatever period) you are no longer producing. You produced. Once.
You are suggesting that somebody (in 500 years it won't be you) be compensated, in perpetuity, for a single act of work. Only with intellectual property is that even possible. You don't see a distinction?
If not, you are being purposefully obtuse, or your brain is straight-up broken. Either way, you are once again the silliest of geese.
What about a piece of land? That land will be there seemingly forever. It costs the owner of that land nothing to rent the land (not a house/building/whatever, but the land) out for use. This is something that is done. And everyone agrees that the ability to rent this land out forever, without putting in any maintenance yourself, is something that should be perpetual.
Land is not Intellectual Property.
If you rent out land to someone, your ability to use it has decreased, because you've ceded that right to the renter, with certain controls, for compensation for your loss.
If I publish a book about Vampires going to war with an unholy moon god who happens to look like Colonel Sanders with the body of a Fist of the North Star brawler, no matter how many people have a copy, I lose nothing. I still have that idea, I can still distribute it, I can still do more things with that idea.
Ok, I concede that intellectual property is unique. That still doesn't answer the question of why it HAS to be different than physical property. In some cases you can make a very good argument that it prevents further innovation, in which case I would agree that it should have a limited time frame for ownership. I don't think that being able to make an exact copy of someones work falls into this category. So to me the default position should be that we grant unlimited ownership.
The last part is I guess only partly true. I'm not 100% convinced that it would be possible to even have this limited copyright be perpetual without having some affect on further innovation, but it seems like it is, and I haven't seen any conclusive arguments that it isn't. I don't see why disney doing their vault thing has prevented anyone from creating new art based on their childhood influences.
Because it is inherently different.
Intellectual property is an idea. You can't be deprived of it by giving it to someone else.
Swordman McGee. He's a guy made entirely out of magical, floating swords, with a vague, muscular humanoid aura surrounding them. Also he sounds like Tom Selleck.
You now have the idea of Swordman McGee. I have given you this. But I still have it too. I have lost absolutely nothing relating to Swordman McGee, the idea, by giving it to you. You can do with it as you will and I can do with it as I will.
Except that intellectual property is not an idea. It's an expression of an idea, which is something very different.
Patents are ideas. Patents are IP.
Copyright covers expressions, yes.
Trademark covers marks to do with trade and commerce.
Honestly I think we need a hole nother category for software but that's another thread.
No one is denying access, simply requiring compensation for it.
And if someone can't afford compensation then...
Then they wont be able to buy it.
Then you will deny access.
How are poor artists supposed to learn from past works in order to create new ones in your system where they aren't allowed access to past materials on the basis that they are poor?
Or are you of the opinion only people with enough money should get to be artists?
Should we let poor artists into every movie for free because not seeing them is denying them the opportunity to learn? Why does copyright exists at all then? Surely the best thing to do would be to distribute all works as massively/cheaply as possible.
Yes, actually it would be.
The only reason we don't distribute them as massively/cheaply as possible (or rather allow people to do so) is so that artists can make a living. Not so their grandchildren can exercise "property" rights.
Also, seats in a theater are a finite supply, and that theater costs money and effort to run. But if they simply wanted to make a copy on disc....
It seems like this is just an arbitrary cutoff point. We have established that it's right to allow ownership of ideas for the benefit of innovators, yet we maintain that that ownership is different than any other type of ownership because of the harm that it could cause. But it isn't the only type of ownership that can cause harm. Not evenly distributing resources causes a lot of harm to. So really the argument is that the harm that it causes isn't justified because there isn't a huge loss to the original inventor from removing the ownership of an idea. They haven't lost anything, except the income that their idea was generating, but no longer is. I maintain that there isn't much harm in saying no one can use the exact likeness of mickey mouse while Disney is actively using it. In this case, it seems that the lost income is more harm than the non-existent effect on society.
In the end I suppose it really depends on how much you think it will effect future generations to not have works pass into the public domain. I'm not convinced it would have much affect, but then how would anyone really know? How can you measure the amount of work that never got created because of something?
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Surely the best thing to do would be to distribute all works as massively/cheaply as possible.
Actually, let's revisit this.
I would hope that most of us, absent concerns about artists being able to eat, would agree that this would be the best thing. That a society where I can, a la Star Trek, simply say "computer, play The Beatles" and have the Beatles come out, is a better society. Where I don't need to worry about spending finite funds to buy finite albums, or whether I can afford to watch a single movie, etc. That we would be richer as a society if all entertainment were completely free. That scarcity kinda sucks, and that when not absolutely necessary (or inherent) we shouldn't create it.
This goes back to the "if I could copy your cheeseburger, and we could both eat it, you're fucking right I would" statement.
If the idea that after a lifetime of capitalizing on your work, that on your deathbed you would be bothered by the idea of people being able to freely enjoy your art in this manner, well...
A) you are a raging asshole and you should consider an exciting career in over-the-road trucking instead
Yeah, that's the thing: obviously I want to compensate artists. Artists make all this neat shit that I like so much.
But I can't believe people invent utopias where you can't access any work at any time. Like obviously that's the ideal, sans needing to worry about granting the artist some money to keep alive.
The idea that this sort of ubiquity would be horrible because oh my the guy who bought the company that negotiated the rights from the agent who spoke to the estate of Philip K. Dick didn't make 10 cents per transaction is just strange. The creation of scarcity because scarcity is moral is such an odd concept.
Ok, I concede that intellectual property is unique. That still doesn't answer the question of why it HAS to be different than physical property.
It IS different from physical property. The reasons for why you might apply unlimited ownership and such to physical property simply don't apply to intellectual property.
In order for you to have my physical property I have to deprived of it, if you want my intellectual property you can just copy it and then we both have it. If you could simply copy my land into infinity while I retain the original land it would be quite probably evil of me to deny you the free land for eternity. And it is free, because you do not ever lose the land through copying.
The idea of copyright is basically a reward. You come up with something cool and then you're rewarded with the ability to make money off of it for a period that covers you and your children/grandchildren. And then, because society deems these ideas significantly useful, society says it is now a free thing and we can all use it freely.
If you came up with a way to straight up copy land for free and to an infinite extent then of course it makes sense to reward you for such an amazing thing, but it seems silly to suggest that after the quite generous reward society shouldn't just fucking take it and give people free land. Shit, you, the inventor of this thing, aren't even alive any more! Not just taking it would mean rewarding people for something they didn't even come up with.
Also I guarunfuckingtee you if useful land could be recreated practically for free it'd probably be a right in the constitution.
Shit, if we could do this the copyright wouldn't even last a year. Society would probably just give you a cheque that says "Everything you will now or in the future want will be paid for." and take the technology and put it to good use.
(Quite of topic and incidentally, T. Pratchett and Stephen Baxter wrote a book called The Long Earth in which society discovers parallel earths (without people) easy to get to. It's basically free land that costs nothing to get to. Interestingly the schematics for the cheap technology to do so are made freely available by some crazy guy who discovered it.)
It seems like this is just an arbitrary cutoff point.
Of course it's arbitrary.
Restricting the ability of the public at large to copy, despite the fact that nothing is taken from anybody else, is arbitrary.
Somewhere you got it into your head that intellectual property is actual property, rather than an arbitrary set of restrictions we place on the public at large for your (temporary) benefit.
In the end I suppose it really depends on how much you think it will effect future generations to not have works pass into the public domain. I'm not convinced it would have much affect, but then how would anyone really know? How can you measure the amount of work that never got created because of something?
I'd bet that a copy of Inferno, Moby Dick, or Beethoven's 5th would cost more. Or, alternately, would fade into obscurity because scarce dollars would chase newer, more fashionable works.
I don't see either of these as good for society, especially since I have little concern for ensuring that Beethoven's great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandchild is compensated for the work of somebody who's dust has since broken down into its trace elements.
Surely the best thing to do would be to distribute all works as massively/cheaply as possible.
Actually, let's revisit this.
I would hope that most of us, absent concerns about artists being able to eat, would agree that this would be the best thing. That a society where I can, a la Star Trek, simply say "computer, play The Beatles" and have the Beatles come out, is a better society. Where I don't need to worry about spending finite funds to buy finite albums, or whether I can afford to watch a single movie, etc. That we would be richer as a society if all entertainment were completely free. That scarcity kinda sucks, and that when not absolutely necessary (or inherent) we shouldn't create it.
This goes back to the "if I could copy your cheeseburger, and we could both eat it, you're fucking right I would" statement.
If the idea that after a lifetime of capitalizing on your work, that on your deathbed you would be bothered by the idea of people being able to freely enjoy your art in this manner, well...
A) you are a raging asshole and you should consider an exciting career in over-the-road trucking instead
This is true and not true. I agree with you that it seems like a better society, but what your ignoring is the emotional connection to your own work. If I create a unique story with unique characters, I like to think that I should be the only one who gets to use them. Sure it costs me nothing for you to use them, and you could argue that it's always better to have more art than less, but it also seems insignificant to require you to change your characters somewhat. To make them distinct from mine. I really can't see that directly preventing anything. Thus I don't see why I shouldn't maintain control. Even if I/my descendents use that control to require compensation for viewing my work forever.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
0
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
I have not seen anything about the Copyright Alert System in the last handful of pages. Therefore, I surmise that the discussion regarding it is done.
Posts
No one is denying access, simply requiring compensation for it. As has already been stated, you could add a clause about not actively distributing if you are really that concerned about someone deciding they just don't like society having their books and saying eff you all, no more copies. The most likely outcome is what Disney is doing now, where their content is very widespread and is being routinely distributed. I'm not seeing the huge drop-off in cultural advancement because they continue to make money, and because their work isn't as distributed as it could be.
And if someone can't afford compensation then...
A) you are a raging asshole and
OH SHIT SON
Like...Song of the South?
So it's different. Is it your position that I have to lose something in order for it to be fair for me to be compensated? The idea of copyright isn't under debate here. We all agree that it's a good idea. I have an idea, I lose nothing if you copy it infinity times, but I can still own the copyright for X years that makes that illegal. I'm just asking why our default position should be that intellectual property, unlike physical property, has a limited ownership. In some cases it's because unlimited ownership of an idea stifles further innovation. Thus the limited copyright. But what if this isn't the case? What if letting no one else besides Disney make/distribute mickey mouse cartoons doesn't prevent future generations from making new cartoons that are exciting? Why should they lose their ownership of that character?
Are they just supposed to create great works all tabula rasa style? Are you trying to pioneer a new movement?
There's probably an argument to be made that you could get it from a library.
Except for the fact that libraries are woefully underfunded and access to their collected works are ludicrously limited in limited amounts of space for physical products, the fact if someone checks one of said physical products out then you can't get ahold of it until it's returned and that even digital collections are now being enforced with artificial scarcity all because the distributors fear the ability of people to just go to the library to get their media so happy waiting for that other person to "finish" and "return"* that audio book you want to listen to
*Hilariously, the DRM on these things are terrible in the most wonderful of ways. I will not elaborate why, as you can probably guess.
Is it your position that the only possible way for something to be fair is to give someone infinite money?
Then they wont be able to buy it. Not seeing the problem here. I can't afford to buy every video game that comes out. That doesn't prevent me from creating new exciting games in the future.
So song of the south enters public domain per the clause on not actively distributing it. As has been said already.
Actually, yes.
Either time, property, etc. You shouldn't expect to be compensated if you aren't losing anything, that's not compensation...it's a gift.
Well, it kinda is. It's just that most of us agree that the justification for it is pretty strong.
No, the default idea is that once an idea is shared, it is free. That is the default.
We are allowing that it is unfortunately necessary to grant limited "ownership" such that artists have some chance of compensation, for the purpose of encouraging creation. Not because you deserve it. I have a hard time saying that any given artist "deserves" compensation for decades for a single act of work (which may be of substantial duration, say writing a book, but is still a single act).
No, it's that limited ownership encourages creation. That's literally the only reason we grant it. Because a world without art would kinda suck. Otherwise it would be "play for your supper, or be a fucking plumber."
Then you will deny access.
How are poor artists supposed to learn from past works in order to create new ones in your system where they aren't allowed access to past materials on the basis that they are poor?
Or are you of the opinion only people with enough money should get to be artists?
Because Disney can still distribute Mickey Mouse to their heart's content. Disney can still make Mickey Mouse cartoons until the company fades into the annals of forgotten history.
Them losing exclusive control of Mickey Mouse does little than maybe "harm the brand," but I'm fairly certain if all the images of Mickey Mouse doing every sex act you can imagine floating around the net haven't done that, the public being able to make their own Mickey Mouse things won't either.
Even if you want to get into, say, merchandising, Disney, as the culturally recognized House of Mouse, can still level the label of being "Official" Mickey Mouse merchandise on the stuff they have made.
You aren't making arguments your just stating random contradictory things. My position is that intellectual property should be treated the same as physical property unless there is significant evidence that it is causing social harm. I have yet to see any arguments about why I need to be able to distribute moby dick on a massive scale without providing compensation for whomever herman mellvile passed his rights to through the generations.
That's rich.
I would argue that having all of creation, back as far as the earliest cave paintings, behind a paywall would create a social harm.
But that's irrelevant.
Because there's no property involved. There's a restriction of actions. My action, that being the action of creating a copy. You are looking to restrict it.
Please explain the justification for restricting that action for the benefit of somebody whose grandchildren are now long dead.
I'd argue it does.
I wasn't able to afford the Takeshi Kovacs trilogy. I lucked out and got them from the library. They made a massive impact on my thinking.
I guarantee that there is a video game, multiple video games, that would have the same impact on you.
[of course, there's probably the argument of negative exposure creating an influential effect on the artist, but I have no idea how that'd work beyond a vague concept of "maybe this is a thing?"]
Disney being able to take advantage of public domain allowed for them to employ, today, 166,000 people. Public domain led to that, not their fucking strangle hold on congress.
Should we let poor artists into every movie for free because not seeing them is denying them the opportunity to learn? Why does copyright exists at all then? Surely the best thing to do would be to distribute all works as massively/cheaply as possible.
No but then I never argued for an extreme so don't need to justify one.
Yes, actually it would be.
The only reason we don't distribute them as massively/cheaply as possible (or rather allow people to do so) is so that artists can make a living. Not so their grandchildren can exercise "property" rights.
Also, seats in a theater are a finite supply, and that theater costs money and effort to run. But if they simply wanted to make a copy on disc....
So I can restrict access to intellectual property but only on the terms that you define as acceptable. Ok.
Except that intellectual property is not an idea. It's an expression of an idea, which is something very different.
Actually, let's revisit this.
I would hope that most of us, absent concerns about artists being able to eat, would agree that this would be the best thing. That a society where I can, a la Star Trek, simply say "computer, play The Beatles" and have the Beatles come out, is a better society. Where I don't need to worry about spending finite funds to buy finite albums, or whether I can afford to watch a single movie, etc. That we would be richer as a society if all entertainment were completely free. That scarcity kinda sucks, and that when not absolutely necessary (or inherent) we shouldn't create it.
This goes back to the "if I could copy your cheeseburger, and we could both eat it, you're fucking right I would" statement.
If the idea that after a lifetime of capitalizing on your work, that on your deathbed you would be bothered by the idea of people being able to freely enjoy your art in this manner, well...
A) you are a raging asshole and
So if others can work with the characters I create, I can't?
If others can freely acquire my work, I can't still distribute copies myself to those who would pay me for it?
I would say we need a limited time for Copyright. The 14 years from creation+ 14-year renewal sounds good. But I honestly do not see how I lose anything from my works going into the public domain.
No, you can restrict the act of copying, but only on terms that we define as acceptable. Let's be clear what you're restricting, here.
You gave up restricting access when you published. With the first copy sold. I can show it to a friend, or any number of friends, with no further permission from you.
You lost the ability, realistically, to earn revenue from the resale of copies of those works.
Let's not pretend that, in many cases, that is not a significant amount of revenue. In a few edge cases, we're talking "mansions, pools, and jets" revenue.
14/14 is probably too short. But really, I don't think we could even constructively discuss potential lengths until we get the silly geese arguing for perpetuity, until the heat death of the universe to realize that they are the silliest geese to ever goose.
Patents are ideas. Patents are IP.
Copyright covers expressions, yes.
Trademark covers marks to do with trade and commerce.
Honestly I think we need a hole nother category for software but that's another thread.
It seems like this is just an arbitrary cutoff point. We have established that it's right to allow ownership of ideas for the benefit of innovators, yet we maintain that that ownership is different than any other type of ownership because of the harm that it could cause. But it isn't the only type of ownership that can cause harm. Not evenly distributing resources causes a lot of harm to. So really the argument is that the harm that it causes isn't justified because there isn't a huge loss to the original inventor from removing the ownership of an idea. They haven't lost anything, except the income that their idea was generating, but no longer is. I maintain that there isn't much harm in saying no one can use the exact likeness of mickey mouse while Disney is actively using it. In this case, it seems that the lost income is more harm than the non-existent effect on society.
In the end I suppose it really depends on how much you think it will effect future generations to not have works pass into the public domain. I'm not convinced it would have much affect, but then how would anyone really know? How can you measure the amount of work that never got created because of something?
Yeah, that's the thing: obviously I want to compensate artists. Artists make all this neat shit that I like so much.
But I can't believe people invent utopias where you can't access any work at any time. Like obviously that's the ideal, sans needing to worry about granting the artist some money to keep alive.
The idea that this sort of ubiquity would be horrible because oh my the guy who bought the company that negotiated the rights from the agent who spoke to the estate of Philip K. Dick didn't make 10 cents per transaction is just strange. The creation of scarcity because scarcity is moral is such an odd concept.
It IS different from physical property. The reasons for why you might apply unlimited ownership and such to physical property simply don't apply to intellectual property.
In order for you to have my physical property I have to deprived of it, if you want my intellectual property you can just copy it and then we both have it. If you could simply copy my land into infinity while I retain the original land it would be quite probably evil of me to deny you the free land for eternity. And it is free, because you do not ever lose the land through copying.
The idea of copyright is basically a reward. You come up with something cool and then you're rewarded with the ability to make money off of it for a period that covers you and your children/grandchildren. And then, because society deems these ideas significantly useful, society says it is now a free thing and we can all use it freely.
If you came up with a way to straight up copy land for free and to an infinite extent then of course it makes sense to reward you for such an amazing thing, but it seems silly to suggest that after the quite generous reward society shouldn't just fucking take it and give people free land. Shit, you, the inventor of this thing, aren't even alive any more! Not just taking it would mean rewarding people for something they didn't even come up with.
Shit, if we could do this the copyright wouldn't even last a year. Society would probably just give you a cheque that says "Everything you will now or in the future want will be paid for." and take the technology and put it to good use.
(Quite of topic and incidentally, T. Pratchett and Stephen Baxter wrote a book called The Long Earth in which society discovers parallel earths (without people) easy to get to. It's basically free land that costs nothing to get to. Interestingly the schematics for the cheap technology to do so are made freely available by some crazy guy who discovered it.)
Of course it's arbitrary.
Restricting the ability of the public at large to copy, despite the fact that nothing is taken from anybody else, is arbitrary.
Somewhere you got it into your head that intellectual property is actual property, rather than an arbitrary set of restrictions we place on the public at large for your (temporary) benefit.
I'd bet that a copy of Inferno, Moby Dick, or Beethoven's 5th would cost more. Or, alternately, would fade into obscurity because scarce dollars would chase newer, more fashionable works.
I don't see either of these as good for society, especially since I have little concern for ensuring that Beethoven's great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandchild is compensated for the work of somebody who's dust has since broken down into its trace elements.
This is true and not true. I agree with you that it seems like a better society, but what your ignoring is the emotional connection to your own work. If I create a unique story with unique characters, I like to think that I should be the only one who gets to use them. Sure it costs me nothing for you to use them, and you could argue that it's always better to have more art than less, but it also seems insignificant to require you to change your characters somewhat. To make them distinct from mine. I really can't see that directly preventing anything. Thus I don't see why I shouldn't maintain control. Even if I/my descendents use that control to require compensation for viewing my work forever.
Geth, close the thread.