Arguing For Infinite Copyright... Using Copied Ideas And A Near Total Misunderstanding Of Property
from the copyright-this dept
Well, well, well. I don't think we've ever had a single story submitted to us more often than Mark Helprin's opinion piece in the NY Times over the weekend, trying (and failing) to support the idea that copyright deserves to last forever and be passed on from descendant to descendant. Before getting into the details of why he's wrong (and confused), I should note that it certainly is interesting that just as a new "copyright alliance" has formed to push for stronger copyright laws, we start seeing articles like this one and others pushing the argument for stronger copyright and patent laws to extreme positions. A conspiracy-minded person might suggest that this is no coincidence, and that the best way to get stronger copyright and patent laws passed is to first get people arguing about ridiculously strong laws, and then get them to agree to "lesser" changes that are still much stronger than what we have today.On to Helprin's confused piece. Helprin makes the same mistake that many make of thinking that just because the linguistic convention is to call such things "intellectual property," it really is the same thing as property. His entire argument is based on this simple point -- and it's why he's wrong. It is amusing to note that some are already pointing out that Helprin's argument is a blatant copy of Mark Twain's -- and yet we doubt he paid the descendants of Mark Twain for it. However, the key to Helprin's problem is his total and complete misunderstanding of the purpose of property as well as the purpose of copyright law.
The purpose of property is to better manage the allocation of scarce resources. Since the resource is limited and not everyone can have it, property rights and property law make complete sense for a civilized society, allowing those with rights to the property to buy, sell and exchange their property. This allows for resources to be efficiently allocated through commerce and the laws of supply and demand. It's a sensible system for the best allocation of scarce resources. However, when it comes to infinite resources, there's simply no need to worry about efficient allocation -- since anyone can have a copy. The purpose of copyright (and of patent law), then, wasn't the same as the purpose of property law. It has nothing to do with more efficient allocation of scarce resources. Instead, it's a government-granted incentive -- a subsidy -- to encourage the creation of new works. In other words, it was a case where the government believed there was a market failure. That is, they believed that without this incentive, certain intellectual works wouldn't be created -- and the tradeoff between locking up that idea and creating more content was one that was worthwhile. However, they always knew that it was a tradeoff -- which is not at all true for real property. And, as an incentive, many would say it's been plenty of incentive for many authors who have written books -- including Helprin. As an author of 11 books, clearly the incentive was enough for him at the time. In effect, by arguing for extended copyright, Helprin is going back and asking the government to change the bargain it gave him and retroactively promise him more. It's as if you could go back to your boss for the work you did in 1975 and say you now want to be paid again for it. Or, more realistically, it's Helprin asking for welfare. He is asking the government to give him a greater subsidy. But, of course, copyright is not a welfare system.
The key point here is that in pretending (or simply ignorantly claiming) that intellectual property is the same as tangible property, Helprin completely misunderstands what rights copyright law gives him. It is not the same right as he has over his own property -- which, after he sells it, he no longer has control over it. Instead of "property rights," copyright gives him a monopoly right (which is what Jefferson preferred to call it) to control how his output is used even after it's sold. That's completely different than a property right -- and, again, the reasoning is simply as an incentive for creation, not to guarantee control. Apparently, Helprin needs quite a history and economics lesson -- but if he had his way, that would be much more difficult since such ideas would be locked up forever.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Statute of Limitations for Copyright
http://wiki.lessig.org/index.php/Talk:Against_perpetual_copyright#Statute_of_Limitations_fo r_Copyright
I'm quoting the comparison of Copyright and other civil contracts, here, but all of those are interesting real world problems. It might be worth copying a selection of the better ones here.]
Regarding the recent call for perpetual copyright. How is that supposed to work in practice? If an heir comes forward claiming rights to some pieces of work, how do we verify the signatures on the contract for people long dead? We can't dig them up and ask them if they're authentic!
What about once the ink has faded and the paper turned to dust? What then?
Did Bacon write Shakespears plays? Does Shakespears heirs get the money or Bacon's heirs get the money?
Does Milli Vanilli own the rights to 'their' recorded voices? Can you locate and prove the contracts even for something only quite recent?
Is dum-de-dum-de-dum-dum originally Stock Aitken and Waterman or a 10BC musician named Tiberious? Can you prove it?
This is just lawyer nonsense. The statute of limitations on civil contracts (the prescriptive period) is 10 years maximum. Everyone keeps their information for no more than 10 years, even banks throw away old records! The idea is, that it's difficult to prove something that happened 10 years ago, people's memories are jaded, and old contracts have long been shredded. Yet dead people have no memories and can't testify in court.
Copyright needs to be brought in line with other civil contracts and reduced to 10 years.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What was distressing with the new "copyright alliance" is their red herring of "protecting" copyright by making it "stronger". What they do not say is that the are aggrandizing the rights of the content holder by stealing the existing rights of the content users.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200011/0671319744___1.htm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So many mistakes....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Copyright in Constitution
"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"
the key here is "limited times" the way it is now I don't even feel limited time applies to it at all. I think it is lifetime plus 90 or 70 years. 2 lifetimes hardly seems to be "limited"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jefferson
It's interesting, however, to note where Jefferson was coming from, that is, how he was, in fact, copping the intellectual property of John Locke. Cribbing from here: http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/4n.htm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Congratulations on your article
Good work!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Good job
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Helprin only partially compares
In Connecticut, we pay approximately 2% of the current market value on our houses each and every year. If Mr. Helprin wants to compare a book idea to a house and receive royalties forever, he also should be required to pay property taxes on those items as well... forever.
Additionally, perhaps he should have to make sure his ideas don't discrimanate according to age, sex, race, etc. according to the Fair Housing Act. No more books geared to a target audience as that would be perceived as discriminatory.
If he wants to follow this analogy, he needs to follow it all the way through to the end, not just stop where he wants. Of course, since it appears as if he's just being a mouthpiece for the corporate copyright machines, we know that'll never happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
But that school of thought has been a disaster for Disney. It admitted as much when it bought Pixar - a company that has been much better at innovating than Disney over the past 15 years.
When you increase the length of copyright, you reduce the incentive to innovate and you shrink the public domain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That's Absurd!
The fallacy of this argument is that that building owner had to put money into the project before ever receiving any return, and they have to continue to maintain the building.
If they want to indefinitely receive an income, why don't they build that building when their work is making money, so that they can receive the royalty after the copyright expires.
The worst area is in academic research. The researcher does the work, writes the paper, then pays to get it published, and then no longer holds the copyright. Other researchers have to pay to get reprints, and it is often at an excessive price.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who is Mark Halprin?
Pardon me, but who is Mark Halprin?
I'm not entirely illiterate... For instance, I've read Huckleberry Finn, The Adventure's of Tom Sawyer, A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur's Court, Life On The Mississippi, and other books. Why, I've even read "The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calveras County."
But who is Mark Helpren?
I know "The Grey Lady". That's the rag what brung us George's Excellent Adventure In Iraq.
But who is Mark Hilpron compared to even Sonny Bono's widow—the Congresswoman whasshername?
But what
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (Masnick) - you're my hero
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shakespeare's copyrights
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That's the point of the inheritance tax, after all, to prevent people from hoarding things based strictly on who they were born to.
So, if the current limit is 90 years for copyright, and the person wrote it near death, then that's 1-3 generations... at 50% tax per generation, leaving the heirs with ~12% of the copyright at 90 years.
Eh, but things don't work that way anyways.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Imagine a world!
Is there really anyone who buys the economic argument that IP laws encourage innovation? Considering all economist are usually white males who are likely to protect their own interests can you really trust anything they say?
Unlimited length for IP rights will likely be passed regardless of what the public thinks (remember the 1913 Federal Reserve vote?)
After all, we would be fooling ourselves if we just believed that just talking about it would stop the fat cats of industry from getting something like this passed.
Can you imagine a legal person (corporations are according to law) owning thousands of peoples works for time and eternity? I know they want it and since they have most the power I wonder how this game will be played out...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mark Helprin is an author.
A quick search says Mr. Helprin is "a novelist, a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute."
Claremont Institute:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claremont_Institute
Mark Helprin:
http://www.claremont.org/scholars/id.36/scholar.asp
I think Helprins likely to be at odds with Claremont on this, the idea that creators need to make and sell *new* IP is core capitalism. He's basically a right wing, free market, writer, but with the exception where it benefits himself, his views are more flexible.
His blog:
http://www.markhelprin.com/index.cfm?page=biography
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thanks
Was it any good? Have they made a movie out of it yet, or was it only on Broadway?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This copyright violation goes out to Mark H....
RIAA Sues
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27696
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sleeping Beauty
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Shakespeare's copyrights
/evil laugh/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Taxing Intellectual Property
I’d vote for extending copyrights indefinitely with the proviso that the copyright holder pays an annual ‘intellectual property’ tax after 10 years of tax abatement. The initial tax needn’t be onerous and a progressively increasing schedule would gently encourage copyright holders to give their work to the public domain when it’s no longer profitable. The new law might even grant a small tax deduction for turning over a copyrighted work into public domain.
Copyright holders like Disney will go for this because they can keep their copyrights for as long as they are profitable and they wish to pay the ‘intellectual property’ tax.
Congress will love this because it generates tax revenue.
We, the people, will love this because failure to pay the ‘intellectual property’ tax results in the work becoming public domain. I expect a flood of public domain when the tax abatement period ends.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hope you don't mind. I'm sure you won't be at all pissed at someone else making money off of your own hard work ? I mean, they would be hypocritical...
You see - there's a very good reason to have copyright. It creates an economy of ideas. Without protection, where is the incentive for someone to put time and effort into an intellectual endeavour ? People have a RIGHT to earn from their work, and without that protection there would be a lot fewer writers, artists and musicians - and the world would be a much poorer place.
As for the tax idea - surely if you earn income from copyrighted work, that income is taxable just like any other ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: by Andy on May 22nd, 2007 @ 4:36am
We don't make income from our houses, which are subject to property tax as mentioned in a previous post, so why wouldn't a permanent copyright holder also be subject to tax regardless of whether it makes them any income?
The limited copyright we have today is kind of like a patent and encourages people to inovate. Making it permanent, just like a 'permanent patent' would make it impossible to inovate because all ideas (which in and of themselves were not original and just extensions of existing ideas) would already be locked up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Andy: Too simplistic an arguement
Other shortcomings include: 1) the concept that content producers need "protection" or they won't produce. Many people produce content based simply on personnel desire, 2) content producers seem to believe that content has some sort of intrinsic value. This is hogwash, content only has value if a demand exists for that content.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Your missing the point
Do you realize that nothing has truely entered the public domain since about 1920. Many corporations who have these copyrights are not using them in any form, but refuse to release them becasue the released works could be brought back by someone else then and would then compete with their existing newer works. I think our existing copyright laws are way to long.
Lets look at it a diffrent way, should patents be made permanent? Should a drug company be allowed to to charge a high price for a drug for the next 150 years becasue they discovered it? The basis is to give the holder time to recover their invesment in the creation of the work, with some reasonable profit, not to grant someone an eternal monopoly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Property, but "whose" property?
I have some thoughts about this whole intellectual property issue.
First: in my opinion there is an important difference to be made. Is the intellectual property owned by a phisical person or a juridical person (might not be correct in english, what I mean is: a person or a company)?
In case it is owned by a single person, such as an writer, singer, composer, sculptor, scientist etc. I really see no point in stretching the intellectual property rights beyond the lifetime of this person. Person passes away: end of intellectual property. I see no reason why the heirs should profit of something they didn't contribute to build or to create in any way.
In case it is owned by a company, I the limit of the intellectual property has to be determined in such a way that it lasts for "a normal life span". I completely agree that stretching the intellectual property life span would undermine innovation. A company would "sit" on what it has created (or, better said, on what some individuals working for it have created) undefinitely, preventing elaboration of the idea, ameliorations, further developments. Our society would turn, very soon, into a non-innovating society.
Why?
Because, before publishing a new idea, the author would have to overcome a series of legal challenges to demonstrate his idea is completely new...
Our world is an interconneted one, so somebody could always find a connection between an idea and another which pre-existed.
As usual, the main hidden argument of the intellectual properties discussion is how to grant to the owners their income...
As limit for intellectual properties I suggest: the life of the author, in case it is an individual (or group of individuals), 20 years for companies (10 years with right on royalties, 10 years without!).
The 10 years without royalties would provide the protection of intellectual property but not the "monetization" of it.
But I am very interested in hearing other thoughts on this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
forgotten nuance?
For example, I think that copyrights (i.e., "intellectual properties rights") should eventually expire, freeing some young film student to legally remake Raiders of the Lost Ark with as much (or as little) originality as they choose, but without fear of Hollywood suing him into oblivion. That's the "concept" aspect.
But should that same person also have the right to duplicate the Raiders of the Lost Ark DVD and sell it? That specific content, be it DVD, WMV file, or whatever, is a tangible performance (even if just 1's and 0's) that might be deserving of different treatment as compared to less tangible things like scripts. Given my own enjoyment of "mashups", I'm not sure this is a particularly good approach, but I think it's worth discussing.
An alternative analogy would be music. Anyone can rearrange, perform, and/or publish a Bach symphony. At some point (perhaps overdue), I should have the same rights to a Beatles song, for instance. What I think should be discussed is whether that right must also mean I can republish a Beatles recording. Or should the two be separated to some extent?
Perhaps a "performance right" distinct from the current "Intellectual Property right"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Inventing is tougher than writing
Imagine Patents were as easy to get as Copyrights, and lasted as long. How many new drugs would we get? Do you see a boost in innovation coming from that? Sure there would be some innovation still, but mostly from large companies that have the resources to defend against claims of infringement of prior art. Can you visualize the relative stagnation of the inventive culture? Just think how liberating it would be to any inventor if after living under such rules, Patent terms were shortened to 21 years. I submit that shortening Copyright terms would be just as liberating.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Um, no
Money isn't free. We all have finite amounts of it and that's why it's valuable. So money is a scarce resource. And retaining a copyright is the way the creator of intellectual property gains more of that scarce resource (money). The very same freemarket mechanism Masnick applauds for physical resources applies to intellectual property.
On a more basic level: What right does Joe Blow have to someone else's intellectual property? Far from intellectual property owners asking government for a subsidy when they request an extension of copyright, the reverse is the case: having a limit, in years, to copyright actually creates a gift to the public at the expense of heirs. I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong that the system works that way, but it's the height of ignorance to throw this gift back in the faces of intellectual property creators and claim that it's society's "right" to take the property after a set number of decades. It's not - it's theft at the expense of the individual but significantly benefiting society.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: forgotten nuance?
Re-publishing public domain works is justifiable, and since everybody have the possibility to distribute the same content, it is not very interesting from a commercial point of view. If you want to republish a Beatles song, you'll have to compete with whoever does the same thing. Such a situation will encourage redistributors to do research, add value and make the offer otherwise interesting. Also, if a liberated work is not widely available, re-distribution is actually benefiting its exposure.
I bought a DVD print of Fritz Lang's Metropolis in a bargain bin. Although a third party who probably has nothing to do with the original author printed it, they still have the merit of making a very reasonably priced transfer available. You could argue a masterpiece is worth more than a cheap sleeve and questionable soundtrack choice, and that the control of the right holders would secure the quality of future releases, but history has shown that heirs often makes pretty bad decicisions about those things too.
I believe it is better to trust the re-distribution of a work to the public. So that the fans can distribute free copies on P2P networks and companies can try their best to compete by enhancing the value of the work with extra material, re-mastering or a wide catalog. That's pretty much the situation right now regarding public domain movies (as far as I know, anyway) and it should stay that way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Seems to me that theft at the expense of the indiv
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another argument
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Another argument -Rewarding Publishers
Promoting the progress of science and the arts means that copyright must only be for a limited period of time. We live in a free market system were the producers must produce to make money, not a royalty (welfare) system that obstructs future innovation through legal gymnastics.
If you can't recover your "investment" by the time the copyright expires, too bad. You simply made an incorrect business decision. Time to move on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It is My Land
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nonsensical
How would all of you feel if, after 20 years, I showed up at your front doorstep and said that I wanted to live in your house; that your proprietary use" of the property had expired? Or mayb you've passed along a cottage to your grandchildren: when you die, should I be able to go to the cottage and tell your gandchildren I want to use it for July and August because it's now in the public domain?
What the heck is the difference?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So many mistakes....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Inventing is tougher than writing
What makes authorship inherently more valuable that my inventions? The purpose of Patents and Copyrights are to create an incentive for people to innovate and author creative works by giving a limited-term monopoly on the "IP". Then the invention or creative work reverts to public domain for the enrichment of society.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If I create something of worth, whether it is tangible or not, why should I not have the ability to profit from it for the rest of my life? Why shouldn't my heirs profit from it just the same as if they inherited a factory or a farm. If copyrights should expire, why not have all property become public when a person dies?
The truth of it is, people are just looking for something for nothing. They wrap in idealistic crap, but they are just too cheap to pay a reasonable price for a book, a movie, or CD.
My pirate friends tell me they aren't hurting anyone because they wouldn't pay for it even if they couldn't download it. That's like me saying that I don't really need to eat. I just eat because I can. The only way to prove either contention is to truly go without. If you truly are a music lover, you will find that you need to address your passion by buying music.
The argument is a simple one: I should own and control what I create.
--Scott
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Cool. Let me know how it goes.
Hope you don't mind. I'm sure you won't be at all pissed at someone else making money off of your own hard work ? I mean, they would be hypocritical...
I don't mind. I make that point all the time. If you can do a better job getting our content to the people who want it, more power to you.
Without protection, where is the incentive for someone to put time and effort into an intellectual endeavour ?
You are apparently new around here. We've gone into great detail about non-monopoly right incentives that work just great. In many cases, they work better.
People have a RIGHT to earn from their work, and without that protection there would be a lot fewer writers, artists and musicians - and the world would be a much poorer place.
Yes, they have a right to earn from their work. We're not denying that. However, you're wrong to suggest there would be fewer writers, artists and musicians. There's plenty of research on this that we talk about all the time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Um, no
Heh. You seem to be confused. The idea itself isn't scarce at all. You're right that money is scarce, but that's different than the idea and doesn't change the argument at all. What you're saying is like if I said "that car is blue" and you respond "well, you're wrong, because that other car is red." We can talk about the scarcity of money all you want -- and it is scarce -- but ideas, once created, are no longer scarce.
And retaining a copyright is the way the creator of intellectual property gains more of that scarce resource (money)
Yes, it is one way. But is the most optimal way? That's the issue we're discussing.
On a more basic level: What right does Joe Blow have to someone else's intellectual property?
Every right in the world, if he can then take that idea and make it better. That's called progress.
It's not - it's theft at the expense of the individual but significantly benefiting society.
And here you are tremendously and, in fact, dangerously, confused. It is not theft. For it to be theft, someone would have had to have lost something. That's not the case at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Nonsensical
Because it's granting them a gov't backed right that the market hasn't provided. That is welfare.
I have to think that people who are opposed to long copyrights simply don't expect to ever produce something valuable and unique, so they hope to benefit from the state's ability to seize proprietary information as quickly as possible.
I produce a ton of valuable content every day, and I get paid well for it... and I am opposed to long copyrights. Why? Because I can make more money without them.
It's not legal gymnastics for an author to say that the book he wrote is his, and that the work he put into it should benefit his great-great-grandchildren: the intellectual property is the product of his mind, and no one else's; he should be the sole decider of the fate of his work, and the profits reaped from it.
This shows a total misunderstanding of property and ideas. It's hard to know where to start... but, considering you've just copied your argument from someone else, are you willing to pay royalties on it? No? Why not?
How would all of you feel if, after 20 years, I showed up at your front doorstep and said that I wanted to live in your house; that your proprietary use" of the property had expired?
I'm guessing you didn't even read the post above. I make a clear distinction between scarce and non-scarce goods. To go back to scarce goods doesn't help your point. It helps prove mine.
What the heck is the difference?
All the difference in the world: scarcity and infinite goods. Learn the difference.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I have never argued that a person cannot benefit from their effort. I am only arguing that the gov't shouldn't set up false monopolies for that purpose. There are many other ways that they can benefit, which we've written about extensively. So your argument here is a non-starter.
Any argument against allowing a person to own and control intellectual property suggests that people should be able to sell manufactured goods only for the cost of production. We don't. We allow them to generate profit that accounts for their time and frequently a great deal more.
No. You are making an assumption that is simply incorrect. There are many ways to profit from ideas that have nothing to do with selling manufactured goods for the cost of production. Again, I suggest you read some of our earlier posts.
If I create something of worth, whether it is tangible or not, why should I not have the ability to profit from it for the rest of my life?
You do have that ability. But it doesn't require a copyright. Stop thinking that it does.
Why shouldn't my heirs profit from it just the same as if they inherited a factory or a farm. If copyrights should expire, why not have all property become public when a person dies?
Because of the key difference between scarce and infinite goods. I thought I made this point in the post. Why do you ignore it?
The truth of it is, people are just looking for something for nothing. They wrap in idealistic crap, but they are just too cheap to pay a reasonable price for a book, a movie, or CD.
No. This is false. Again, I've pointed out why people can make much more money by ignoring copyright. So it's not about being cheap at all. It's about expanding markets.
My pirate friends tell me they aren't hurting anyone because they wouldn't pay for it even if they couldn't download it. That's like me saying that I don't really need to eat. I just eat because I can. The only way to prove either contention is to truly go without. If you truly are a music lover, you will find that you need to address your passion by buying music.
As I've said, this has nothing to do with piracy. My argument stands even without piracy.
The argument is a simple one: I should own and control what I create.
And you do. What you DON'T get to control is what you've sent out into the world. Just like you don't get to control what happens to a chair after you've sold it, you don't get to control your content after you've sold it to someone else. If you want to have IP and real property play by the same rules, then why won't you accept this rule?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The real tragedy
It's representative of the fallacy that many share here in the United States. We rig the rules to give inordinate benefits to a tiny number of people with the assumption that we have a good chance of being one of those people.
We should institute a copyright renewal fee which increases exponentially each year after the first 17 years.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Nonsensical - Bad Analogies
When a copyright or patent expires it goes into the public domain where anyone has the freedom to benefit by it. The state is not seizing anything.
"that your proprietary use" of the property had expired?"
There are many types of property. Land is one of those types of property that has a long life. However, other forms of property such as cars and computers have a short life. In fact their value tends to depreciate as newer and better cars and computers are introduced. In the end the monetary value of old cars and computers can actually be negative since you have to pay the garbage guy to pick the junk up and haul it away.
I would advocate that the "value" of copyrighted material is also subject to economic factors such as depreciation (not in the physical sense) and competition. What has value today for the consumer may be valueless tomorrow. An author may believe his work is worth $1 Million. However, if no consumer is willing to pay, it sits on the shelf and benefits no one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No justification.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Quantity vs. quality
For example, in pre-industrial societies with no copyright law, one would only produce music, literature or art if one truly believed that one's work would enrich society. One could not count on a large individual benefit. For this reason Mozart wrote music that people today still listen to, Davinci created art that people still look at, shakespeare wrote plays that are still performed. I am convinced that Da Vinci would have worked just as meticulously even if he had known his name would be obliterated from all historical records 20 years after his death.
Counter this with today's America where any honest, intelligent person must concede that the art, literature and music of our society is pure crap. But people keep producing it because copyright law gives them incentive to keep regurgitating out the same formulaic movies, the same shitty art, the same mind-numbing music and the same pretentious novels.
The "inovation" of copyright law has in many cases resulted in lower quality work rather than higher quality. The IP defenders are thinking only of profit, even if this creates a mediocre society.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Melancholy Elephants
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"The purpose of property is to better manage the allocation of scarce resources."
Sorry, but `property' doesn't have a purpose, it just exists. The sentence did have the `property' of telling me that at best, it's a poorly written article---the reason I stopped reading it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: propert
Obviously you've never thought of property from a social perspective. Quite simply I'd ask what the underlying motives might be to people staking a claim to a particular piece of land might be. It might be becuase you think there is gold underneath, or that it's close to a river or in a good neighborhood, but all of these elements make a limited resource such as land more or less valuable and hence worth protecting as "property." Now in the case where property doesn't exist you probably end up with what is termed "the tragedy of the commons" (phrasing may vary), which in turn creates an incentive for people to establish their own turf which they themselves can take care of and keep others that they don't trust away from it. Or to simplify consider the difference between renters vs. owners.
Another way I can refute you is simply buy saying that the idea that property doesn't have a purpose is like saying that law doesn't have a purpose (property being nine tenths).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I copyright the letter "e"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
No. They have a right to TRY to earn from their work, there is absolutely no guarantees that every business idea or model is profitable, nor should there be.
"and without that protection there would be a lot fewer writers, artists and musicians - and the world would be a much poorer place."
You mean there would be a lot less shit out there? Good. Would be nice if the only things out there would be those for which there was some other motivation to create than just money. Perhaps I wouldn't have to delete 90% of the stuff I download right off because it's such utter garbage.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Nonsensical
I'm afraid there wouldn't be room for you. But if you wanted to build a new copy of my house for yourself, I say go ahead.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Limited Copyright is good - just ask the public do
A permanent copyright isn't good for a free society. Having works or "thought" enter the public domain promotes new works, promotes artistic freedom - it basically grows society.
The limited copyright law that is now in place offers a lot of protection.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Um, no
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It is welfare
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nice article
-------------
Muthu
MLS
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It wouldn't work
---------
Kristen
real estate license
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shakespeare Never Owned the Copyrights.
Large corporate entities always like to preserve their freedom of action by owning everything outright, and they use their economic leverage to do so at a reasonable price, eg. by enforcing "work for hire" employment. Large items of capital, such as printing presses and stages tended to count for more than the author's "thought-stuff." It was inevitable that perpetual copyright eventually worked out to a big corporation owning everything. That is just as true of Microsoft and of the movie studios as it was of the Globe Players and the Stationer's Company.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Copyright in Constitution
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: That's Absurd!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Andy: Too simplistic an arguement
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Property, but "whose" property?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Um, no
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Another argument
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]