Do You Actually Understand What Copyright Is For?
from the most-people-don't dept
One of the more amazing things I've discovered in discussing copyright, patents and trademarks with people is that very few people seem to know what each of those three sets of regulations are actually intended for. It certainly makes reasonable discussion and debate on any sort of reform difficult when a large percentage of people involved in the debate (or, tragically, writing the laws around those regulations) seem to believe the purpose of them is entirely different than it actually is. That's why we've tried to point to some historically interesting discussions on these regulations. Two recent blog posts pointed out something interesting related to all this. The first, comes (again) from copyright expert William Patry, who points to a seven minute video of ordinary people explaining why they think copyright exists. The video itself is by Karl Fogel, who also runs a site called Question Copyright. What the video pretty clearly demonstrates is that most people have no clue why copyright exists, and many assume (as we see in the comments around here) that it's there to "protect" the content creator or to prevent plagiarism. No one seems to note that its true purpose, as per the Constitution, is to promote progress (amusingly, many believe copyright is a much more recent creation).
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
Filed Under: copyright
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
someone tell EMI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: someone tell EMI
Like seriously, I know I'm tired now that it's 2:00 AM but a post really shouldn't make a reader think "wtf, what does that have to do with anything" at first glance.
Anyways, in regards to the article, it doesn't surprise me. I've come to the sad realization that 98% of Americans don't really believe in the Constitution of the United States. Too many are oblivious to the intent and facts of the actual document. It'd take a seriously powerful and influential orator to get Congress to fix what's wrong with several laws and regulations currently in use by the U.S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: someone tell EMI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: someone tell EMI
Mike Allen does. Thanks for asking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: someone tell EMI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: someone tell EMI
To keep this comment on topic, I'd like to ask: Does it really matter what the majority of the population thinks about copyrights? Unless someone has an idea worth patenting in the first place, they can remain ignorant and it doesn't hurt anything. Thats the beauty about America! You can remain ignorant about anything that doesn't affect you directly (although, you leave yourself available for exploitation) and still live your life. I prefer to not follow that lifestyle myself, but many people I know do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: someone tell EMI
In regards to the second part of your comment... now I'm confused. You switch from copyright to patent as though they are the same thing, which they clearly are not. This, of course, is part of the problem the article is talking about. People just don't understand the laws or the purposes behind the laws, and it allows the powerful corporations to mold the laws to their advantage (and society's disadvantage).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: someone tell EMI
Anyway, follow up question: Are you saying these corporations are actually changing laws, or just manipulating current laws to their advantage? And if so, how exactly are they doing that? I'm oblivious to any of this.
From the little I know, I really like the concept of copyrighting/patenting/trademarking. It is part of the capitalist mindset to further progress that is obviously working (Anyone seen the Soviet Union lately??) :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: someone tell EMI
They've done both, repeatedly. There's way too long a history to go into to give all of the examples, but a few key ones are things like the constant extension of copyright so that it's become essentially infinite (basically, whenever Micky Mouse is about to go into the public domain, it gets extended) and the recent PRO IP bill which would make the FBI into Hollywood's private enforcement arm.
From the little I know, I really like the concept of copyrighting/patenting/trademarking. It is part of the capitalist mindset to further progress that is obviously working
Hmm. Don't confuse correlation with causation. There's fairly strong evidence that US success has been in spite of its IP system, rather than because of it. If you look at actual studies on the matter, there's little to no proof that IP protection increases output, and a fair amount that suggests the opposite (i.e., once you have a monopoly protection, you now have less incentive to create the *next* thing).
Also, I'm curious how you see IP as being a capitalist idea? It's a gov't granted monopoly, which is generally the opposite of a capitalist concept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: someone tell EMI
And as for relating it to capitalism, I have a very basic understanding of the details and definitions of capitalism, and I see IP as the opposite of communism - and therefore capitalist! haha, I know not the best of arguments, but I'm an engineer not an economist!
Now, feel free to go ahead and tear that to pieces. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: someone tell EMI
That's because selling and shipping little plastic discs is a failing business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: someone tell EMI
WE HOPE YOU'RE HAPPY NOW!
Best Regards,
The Music Industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: someone tell EMI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now, I'm far from being a copyright expert, but doesn't it promote progress....by protecting the content creator?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Promoting Progress
By way of an extreme example, if a work was deemed not to further "progress", it would not qualify for copyright protection. I wonder, if anyone has successfully overturned a copyright claim by asserting that the work does not further "progress"???? (Yes, I realize that "progress" is very vague and subjective and would lead to all sorts of slippery slope comments.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Promoting Progress
Is this just a symantic quibble, whats going on here?? Heres my thought, which apparently makes me one of the ignorant public:
The INTENT of copyright: Further progress and innovation to benefit society.
The METHOD of doing so: Protect the intellectual property (or is that only patenting?) of an inventor/company from plagiarism.
So is the problem here that people are confusing the method as the intent? Or am I still wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: someone tell EMI
"That's all well and good, Some Guy, but here in *reality* people are losing their jobs." I would argue, and I think Mike M. would agree, that they don't have to be. Even if you look at EMI as SOLELY "a merchant of CDs" there are plenty of ways they can leverage the free distribution of music as a way to sell CDs. They can put extra content on the CD itself, video media, interviews with the band, etc, which would be minimal cost to them. They could actually make the CD insert valuable, with lyrics, maybe guitar tabs, interviews, et cetera. They could link physical CDs to an oline site, and use serial numbers or whatever to grant access to exclusive content. But they're not. They're trying to hold onto the idea of "just selling music" and the market has changed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Davkaus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Davkaus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Davkaus
However if you shift gears to look at the state of patents. (In particular software patents, and patents for vaporware) I think you have hit the nail on the head. The sheer quantity of patents, combined with the fact many are for crazy things like "clicking a button", "rewarding good customers", and "searcing a distributed database" stifle progress to no end. It is a mine-field. I would love to create a great new piece of software / hardware. But without a multi-billion dollar company behind me, I would be afraid to walk the mine-field alone, or hold liabilty for any so-called infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Davkaus
But if so, I'm filing for "walking on two legs in an upright position."
You can pay me my royalties now. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
someone tell BuggyWhipsRus
"According to BBC and others EMI are to shed 2000 jobs blaming falling CD sales and music piracy."
How many jobs were "lost" to the horseless carriage ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: someone tell BuggyWhipsRus
Although, while I agree newer technology is responsible for the change, I think its a little different in that the EMI losses are due to piracy and theft (I would assume) as a result of the new technology and online filesharing communities. But I have no idea who EMI even is... I'm just assuming they're a record label!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ask Congress
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fallicies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright vs Trademark vs Patent
I, admittably, do not fully have my head around the difference in copyright, trademarks and patents. I understand the concepts, but sometimes they overlap in my thinking.
So, if an avid TechDirt reader (who is exposed to these issues daily via the TechDirt RSS feed) sometimes has a hard time keeping these straight, the average American who isn't exposed to these issues will probably find it a bit complex as well. Its not because people are dumb, but because most people have never had to know the difference.
I found this article on the web: http://www.lawmart.com/searches/difference.htm If anyone else knows of a really good article that spells out the differences, can you post it? I'm curious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
more on this
The people who said about the buisiness model being worng are also correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What Copyright Is For
"no person shall be entitled to the benefit of this act...unless he shall first deposit" Only AFTER you have given the public access to your work, can you subsequently claim the limited exclusive right to TRY to profit from your work. Original US law requires at least two copies be deposited, original British law requires copies be sent to every major library (nine) which was later increased to twelve.
The US copyright act itself, is clearly derived from the British "Statute of Anne". (Almost as if by a plagiarist.) Direct statements can be found there as to the intention of the concept.
"Whereas Printers, Booksellers, and other Persons, have of late frequently taken the Liberty of Printing, Reprinting, and Publishing, or causing to be Printed, Reprinted, and Published Books, and other Writings, without the Consent of the Authors or Proprietors of such Books and Writings, to their very great Detriment, and too often to the Ruin of them and their Families: For Preventing therefore such Practices for the future, and for the Encouragement of Learned Men to Compose and Write useful Books;"[2]
Clearly, copyright was NEVER intended to protect the authors and/or publishers from the public. It directly addressed the problem of PUBLISHERS cheating authors, and thereby discouraging them from writing any of their learnings down. Since most people did not have direct contact with these "learned men" there was no way to pass on this knowledge to the next generation.
By vesting the work in the author, the act gave the learned men incentive to write their work down. By requiring deposit in libraries and archives, the act encouraged learning by enabling ACCESS to that knowledge.
(Everything else is a corruption of these basic principles.)
[1] http://www.copyright.gov/history/1790act.pdf
[2] http://www.copyrighthistory.com/anne.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents
An inventor must first write down how the invention works, and then file it for all to see and examine. If a patent is granted, the inventor must then sell a product which includes the patent, or must license the patent for someone else to use in a product.
Patents can be revoked if the inventor attempts to keep benefits of the invention from the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However, you are free to become either if you want. If you decide to become a publisher, don't steal the property of creators. And know that by definition, people get to read what you publish and don't have to ask your permission to do so.
Pub•lish ORIGIN Middle English (in the sense [make generally known] ): from the stem of Old French puplier, from Latin publicare ‘make public,’ from publicus (see public ).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This anywhere true?
http://www.p2pconsortium.com/index.php?showtopic=9500
This post is a translated version, which explains copyright was created because of the printing press and was designed as a system to hinder copying of books (ie: cannot copy without the church's permission).
I'm now curious, how much of it is correct?
I understand it's a biased source and some details might be exaggerated, but the general idea would remain the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not by chance
Companies are willing to take any steps to protect their income streams, no matter the cost to the general public or to human progress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disagreement
If it was not for copyright laws, there would be limited reasoning for investors to invest into product development, as another company could quickly copy the invention without investing any funds.
However, I do feel current copyright laws is too strict.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adequate Compensation is Incorrect
The original purpose of copyright was to encourage the development of works that further progress for the social good, not to compensate the author. Copyright today has degenerated to a toll-booth for generating revenue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Adequate Compensation is Incorrect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Adequate Compensation is Incorrect
There's a big implicit assumption here that is false. You are assuming that it's copyright that allows a book writer to make money. However, books that are well out of copyright still make plenty of money -- and even though they can be "copied" by others, it doesn't mean the originator doesn't still receive the bulk of the benefit.
For example, Congress' 9/11 report was released (as all public gov't documents are) without any copyright. However, it was first given to one publisher who was the first on the market with it. While others rushed their own version to market almost immediately after the first one, it was still the first "official" publisher who made the vast bulk of the profits from the sale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disagreement
This sounds good, but falls apart when you think about it (and when you look at the historical evidence). Being first to market is a huge advantage, as it builds reputation and reputation creates a premium that you can charge for. Also, being first to market often means you better understand that market and future products tend to be more advanced ahead of the competition as well. So the idea that without copyright there would be no investment in product development is simply false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Disagreement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Disagreement
Again, as I wrote above, that's not actually true. Even when identical versions were published of the 9/11 report, it was still the publisher that got it out first who received the bulk of the sales.
On top of that, there is the reputation issue, which is likely to keep the scenario you described in check. If a big publisher does that regularly, it would get a bad reputation in the market, and people would learn to stay away from them. That publisher has all the incentive in the world to actually reward the author, as it means that when he or she writes the next book, they may be more likely to team up with that publisher to release the initial copies (which, as we noted, is where the bulk of the revenue lies).
As proof of this, back in the 19th century, US publishers did not need to obey copyright of foreign authors if they wanted to republish in the US. Certainly, there were some publishers who chose to merely copy foreign books, but the biggest publishers still sent royalties to the authors as they recognized how important it was to have a good relationship with those authors (and with the public).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People Seemed Informed
Sure, they did not answer the PRECISE question that is written in the video "What is the purpose of Copyright?", because the original purpose is to stimulate the public release of creative works. But isn't that really a bit abstract a response to expect? Wouldn't you expect smart, practical people to just answer with the practical effect of Copyright?
But my disagreement with you and Fogel's take on this has a better argument than the fact that people mistakenly responded with a practical interpretation of the purpose of Copyright. In fact, that is what they were actually asked to say...
The actual question, orally recorded by Fogel at the start of the video is:
"How would you describe the purpose of Copyright.
What exactly does it do? What's it for?"
What's it do? It does what they say it does. Perhaps they failed to mention the founding father's purpose, but I think the people did a great job of answering the question that they were actually asked, and thus the video and Fogel's point are completely moot.
Who cares if they know how long Copyright has existed? I don't know how long the USA has driven on the right side of the road, and I don't need to. Been that way since I was born, and I can work in that system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Problem With Not Knowing
The problem with not knowing the above, is that it leads you to believe that it is sensible to monitor reading, restrict access to creative works, and curtail places like libraries. "Obviously," state the unenlightened, "If these were to get out of hand, it would seriously effect business opportunities."
The logic of copyright is exactly the OPPOSITE of this. It dictates that society's education, privacy in consuming published works, and open access to complete archives FAR OUTWEIGH any mere business interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, the purpose of copyright is even more su
Glad you liked the video!
It's true that some of those involved in originally designing copyright (in the late 1600s and early 1700s) were interested in promoting "progress"... but they problem they were trying to solve was about replication and distribution, not about creation. (This all predates the U.S. Constitution by many decades, by the way. The U.S. constitutional clause enabling copyrights mainly echoes a British system that had already been in place for years, and with which the framers of the Constitution were very familiar.)
Copyright is probably best understood as a printing industry regulation designed to make the printing of books economical for the publishers, given the replication technology of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries: the printing press.
Today, people have somehow gotten this notion that writers and artists rose up in the distant past and demanded monopoly restrictions on the distribution of their work. It's a myth: that's not what happened. Creative artists were mostly uninvolved in the beginnings of copyright -- which makes sense, because it wasn't done for them in the first place.
See http://www.QuestionCopyright.org/faq#origin, and other articles on the site, for more details.
Best,
-Karl Fogel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Never having to know the difference puts them in the "dumb" camp, afaic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copywrite
from the most-people-don't deptth - or perhaps this all depends on the price behind it? Money? Ego? Time? Or is the stress worth the havoc it pays on our bodies and minds?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copywrite
from the most-people-don't deptth - or perhaps this all depends on the price behind it? Money? Ego? Time? Or is the stress worth the havoc it pays on our bodies and minds?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pimps and Ferrets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grossly over done
U.S. patents for inventions of material things offer 21 years of protection for the inventor.
Copyrights are thought of in the same way but the law offers Ninety Nine years for
Creative intelligence. That's bull!
You know, if you sing happy birthday in a group without paying a copyright fee your breaking the law.
You know, The Laurel and Hardy movies that are approaching a hundred years old are still under copyright protection.
Well, who profits from the control of intellectual thinking?
Most of the people involved are those who gain control of the "rights" not the creators themselves.
I strongly feel copyrights should be granted a maximum of 20 years.
I also feel a patent or copyright should not be transferable to an employer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Delaying public domain
Copyrights were actually "invented" by a cartel of printers to protect monopoly rights to print specific books. They were only expanded to include rights for authors when government got involved - and then only to camouflage the real intent of subsidizing the printing of books.
Copyrights were intended to be limited in duration, allowing the producer to recover his investment before the work became public domain. File sharing has only become "piracy" due to the extension of copyright protection far beyond the original duration - even as technology has made it possible to shorten the time required for the creator to recover fair value compensation.
For a more complete exploration of this issue - including an historical perspective of how we got where we are today, and a way to achieve a workable solution - check out: http://www.kortexplores.com/node/174
[ link to this | view in chronology ]