When You Try To Figure Out Who Owns Imaginary 'Property,' Things Get Confusing Fast
from the rights-holders? dept
We've discussed in the past how copyright isn't really "property" at all, and trying to compare it to regular property leads to all sorts of confusing problems. Take, for example, this lawsuit, found via Michael Scott, over who owns the rights to thousands of songs. The actual mess is a bit complex, but as you read through it, you realize that we're dealing with the emperor's new clothes in the form of copyrights. A bunch of different people are arguing over who owns a totally made up thing, with different people simply claiming to own it, and leaving it for the courts to figure out. Here's just a snippet of the mess (which gets more complex if you read the whole article):Carbert Music is publisher of more than 150,000 songs from all music genres, including "Back in Black" by AC/DC, "I Got You (I Feel Good)" by James Brown and "What a Wonderful World," according to the complaint.With real property, even if there are ownership disputes, they don't get as ridiculously complicated as this. They don't go on for years with multiple people all believing they own the property only to find out later they might not. They don't involve people just declaring they own a piece of property with no one realizing they might not. These are all arguments over "imaginary" property, which isn't property at all. At what point do people realize just how ridiculous this whole structure is?
Carbert claims Don Great, who is not a party to this lawsuit, fraudulently registered "thousands" of the Carlin Library's songs in his own name, or in the name of his companies, Don Great Music and Tinseltown Music, or in the name of defendant May-Loo Music....
Five years later, May-Loo sued Great, claiming he had brokered secret business deals on behalf of May-Loo and had mishandled revenue. Great countersued, but a federal jury found awarded Loose and May-Loo $1.9 million in 2004, according to Carbert's complaint.
Carbert says it bought a catalogue of music called the GRH Catalogue from Harrose Music Co. in 2005. Soon afterward, Carlin says, it discovered that Great had falsely registered "many" of the GRH songs to himself, his companies or May-Loo. Great's actions "muddied the chain of title" and kept Carbert from licensing the songs, Carbert says.
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, imaginary property, lawsuits, music
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
im starting to cut parts out of my head
bad brain matter
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ha at us.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If they're your normal, everyday person who just likes music? Long ago.
If they're grasping, rent-seeking corporate hacks? Apparently never.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
In India there is a reported dispute between heirs over the property of a decedent that has dragged on, so it is reported, since about 1836.
Whether these are true or not I have not been able to confirm by independent sources. If, however, the reports are in fact correct they would make US lawsuits look as if they take place in the blink of an eye.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What gives you that impression? Business negotiations and contract disputes, especially where large sums of money are involved are equally complex. Heck, I have seen simple civil suits fir things like construction defects where a plaintiff--a single homeowner--will engage 12 or 15 defendants. You think the paperwork on a suit like that is simple? You think 6 minutes with Wapner solves those problems?
Spend a few hours in a small law office handling "simple" civil suits sometime.
We get it already. You have no use for lawyers. You have little use for government systems to adjudicate disputes. No matter how often the system works, a few examples of when it doesn't are condemnation enough to throw the whole thing out. It's seriously turning into Libertarian Fantasy Groundhog Day around here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Copyright
Just because the deal is complex doesn't negate the rights of the parties.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: taxes
Tax copyright and patents like we do regular property.
I mean it's real and valuable, provides income and it doesn't even need maintenance. You can set values easily by looking at what the "owners" are claiming in court for damages. Hell give them perpetual copyright with the option to donate it to the public domain and I bet we see the public domain grow exponentially over the next few years...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The problem is that when it comes to IP laws the system fails far more often than it works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So you think an "ownership dispute" is the same thing as a "liability dispute"? Ha. Stupid copyright troll, go back to the **AA.
We get it already. You have no use for lawyers.
No, we get it already. You're a shill for an industry that likes nothing better than to screw people over with their lawyers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Copyright
Who says they didn't?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"The copyright laws in this country are already outrageous and I will not support any law that wishes to add additional enforcement, or expansion of copyright laws until the current system is fixed."
http://www.pirate-party.us/content/respond-us-governments-request-increase-enforcement-co pyright-law
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rights
So remember, boys and girls, always hire a lawyer and go to court to get a declaratory judgment on the rights to that song before you buy the download. It's the only safe thing to do!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: taxes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I mean, an exclusive right to distribute content for profit doesn't seem very sexy or valuable when it's actually easier to distribute content without profit entering into it at all (which works around the exclusive right whether you like it or not). But if you license that right out to another company to produce something else from it, then you get paid whether they make any money or not. It's not a big surprise that they'd focus on finding as many things as possible to license to others, then. Play your cards right and it's a perpetual stream of money for a one time filing of a piece of paper. So let's build a portfolio of that sweet sweet intellectual property, and we'll always call it that instead of calling it what it really is (exclusive right to distribute for profit). But maybe the rhetorical flourish worked too well, because if you sell something to investors as "property," that's what they're going to think it is. Even if it really isn't. Well now they're stuck and you're stuck. Either you all have to admit that it was a linguistic exaggeration (or scam, if you like), or you have to try and make it so after the fact. And that seems to be where we are now. Everyone scrambling to make it a real thing in order to justify stupid investments that they're stuck with--and damn the public, and damn the promotion of progress.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
And yes, this comment will be moderated because you like to moderate comments.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I think we will learn ascertain a very important lesson, which is when credit is cheap, products are cheaper because the net borrowing cost (or opportunity cost being a spendthrift) are lowered. This perhaps results in a society's expectation of consumption over assets.
This then results in a desire from industry to increase asset valuation. Since 1930, this was accomplished through political means to gain a higher valuation to satisfy investors. An unfortunate side effect of this is that the price of entry into existing industries becomes too high for new players to be admitted. This is something that a lay person is not expected to recognize.
The problem may be that there exist few real tried, tested, and equitable alternatives to the current system. Part of this may be a result of the industry's inability to experiment with new models when times were good. Another theory is that the legal framework in place doesn't focus on offensive capabilities and allow for an extension of commerce in a realistic marketplace where pertinent data and information can be available at a moment's notice.
But rather, adherence to an old system where strengthening the existing marketplace through legal means is more applicable.
However, I believe that we're fast approaching a place, a sort of intersection between the two schools of thought where an offensive move can indeed be considered defensive, thusly rendering ACTA as well as DCMA obsolete.
In the short term, we have to accept that consumption will decline in some industries such as Pharma will be able to organically grow their market without real innovation outside of marketing.
Alas, some of these industries seem to believe creation of international treaties outside of the generally accepted and voted-upon Act/Bill process used by the US Congress for over 200 years is insufficient to their investors.
Their excess leverage is defined retrospectively as the forward looking assumptions will in time be proven false.
The current expectation of Government to act and strengthen a system which provides a mechanism to re-value undervalued assets through regulation risks disappointing voters at its own risk. These areas are bio, bio-medical, pharma and bio-tech.
I tend to believe that through the works of Mike and others here that the RIAA and MPAA were brought along for the ride.
What strikes me as odd is the policy decision to increase supply-side economic theory because not everyone used that lower cost capital to invest but rather many use it to consume.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"Business negotiations and contract disputes" are not the same as "real property" disputes.
A proper comparison would be if two companies were to have a complicated arguement about who owned the business complex next door.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Copyright
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
@7
MIGHT even sue a disabled person
might even...
well i think these people are insane
INSANE, because as the one poster said "long ago" happened for a lot more then music lovers and literally everyone should be one of those in some fashion.
heres a nice quote for sarcastic above from a lil tune
and the sign said
long haird freaky people need not apply
so i took my hair up under my hat and went in to ask him why
he said you look like i fine upstanding young man, i think you'll do
SO i took off my hat and said i imagine that, HUH me WORKING FOR YOU
[chorus
sign sign everyone a sign barking up the scenery breaking my mind
do this don't do that can't ya read the sign
/end chorus]
and the sign said anybody caught trespassing,
would be shot on site,
so i jumped on the fence,
and i yelled at the house,
HEY WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT,
to put up a fence to keep me out,
OH to keep mother nature in,
if GOD was here,
he'd tell ya to your face,
man your some kinda sinner,
[chorus]
Now hey you mister can't you read,
got ta have a certain tie to get a seat,
ya can't even watch ,
NO can't eat,
YOU AINT SUPPOSED TO BE HERE
SIGN SAID YOU GOT TO HAVE A MEMBERSHIP CARD TO GET INSIDE
UHH
and the sign said
everybody welcome come in neal down and pray,
BUT when they passed around the plate at the end of it all
i didn't have a penny to pay,
SO I GOT ME A PEN AND PAPER
i SAID thank you lord for thinkin bout me
im alive and doin fine
[chrorus]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[chrorus] correction
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tangible and Intangible Property
Tangible property such as real estate does get just as complicated which is why we buy title insurance and do physical surveys. There is little difference between ownership of intangible property and tangible property. Both can have clouded titles or mistakes in the meets and bounds descriptions and one can buy insurance to cover the costs of dealing with these types of problems.
Rather you like it or not intangible property rights are becoming more important and you will have to learn to deal with it or maybe join the Amish.
Ronald J. Riley,
I am speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 / (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Have you considered what we had before? Would you prefer trial by combat or a sovereign deciding?
Ronald J. Riley,
I am speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 / (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Copyright
That alone says the plaintiff didn't do a copyright "title" search.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bad Bad Poster you!
Now pay up!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"If it's too hard to do then it's not worth doing"?
So, because intellectual property is presumably more difficult to manage and easily susceptible to fraud it not only doesn't deserve protection but it doesn't even deserve to be called property?
Consumers purchase one product over a similar product because of reasons that are intangible (design of the product or design of the packaging, the "goodwill" of the manufacturer, etc.). These intangible qualities of products (even more so if the product itself is considered to be intangible) are very valuable not only to the creators of the content, but also the consumers who seem to insist that they are not.
Intellectual property is still property, regardless of its "imaginary" existence. Perhaps it seems imaginary for two reasons: 1) general consumers never had to deal with intellectual property before the digital age and are justifiably ignorant of its importance, and 2) society has developed a tremendously tight bond between property and tangibility, making them seem inseparable, perhaps due to the lack of exposure to intellectual property (though art and music have always been around).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: You can thank a sovereign for copyright, thank you
That group were called, and are still called, publishers. Lately we've added another predator species to the list. We call them patent trolls. Look in the mirror if you need to identify one, Ronald J Riley.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "If it's too hard to do then it's not worth doing"?
It doesn't deserve to be called property because copyright/patents are regulatory by nature. They do not cover things in the holder's possession but things that never were.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Tangible and Intangible Property
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Imaginary Lover?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Tangible and Intangible Property
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Tangible and Intangible Property
The purchasing person/entity usually borrows in order to complete said purchase and it is a requirement of the loaning entity that the purchaser pay for title insurance put in place to protect the investment made by the loaning entity. If a person were to pay cash for their purchase, is it a requirement that they get title insurance ?
RJR -> "There is little difference between ownership of intangible property and tangible property."
You sir, are incorrect as there are many differencs and I'm sure you are quite aware of them.
RJR -> "and one can buy insurance to cover the costs of dealing with these types of problems."
Thank goodness for that. I feel so much better now. I'm positive that insurance will solve all the worlds problems and the insurance industry would not even consider disallowing legitimate claims.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "If it's too hard to do then it's not worth doing"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Tangible and Intangible Property
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: "If it's too hard to do then it's not worth doing"?
Why aren't facts considered property? E=mc2?
I own 1+1=2!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Tangible and Intangible Property
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Tangible and Intangible Property
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tangible and Intangible Property
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright
Actually, almost all of the countries in the world are signatories to the Berne Convention and thus require no registration for automatic copyright.
That alone says the plaintiff didn't do a copyright "title" search.
Fail. Read what I just wrote above.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Bad Bad Poster you!
Copyright doesn't apply until a work is fixed in a tangible form.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "If it's too hard to do then it's not worth doing"?
Perhaps people need more exposure to fiction?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Tangible and Intangible Property
Which is what we are going to need to start doing whenever we buy anything covered by copyright. First hire a title search company, then buy insurance to cover us in case the title search company got it wrong and we get sued for buying "unauthorized" material anyway.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: You can thank a sovereign for copyright, thank you
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Tangible and Intangible Property
But he likes to pretend otherwise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Bad Bad Poster you!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Silly IP.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I got the solution. Why not just allow them to own the imaginary property in their imagination and not reality?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "If it's too hard to do then it's not worth doing"?
Yes, and also because in many cases Intellectual Property doesn't have the limits inherent to make ownership necessary.
"Consumers purchase one product over a similar product because of reasons that are intangible (design of the product or design of the packaging, the "goodwill" of the manufacturer, etc.). These intangible qualities of products (even more so if the product itself is considered to be intangible) are very valuable not only to the creators of the content, but also the consumers who seem to insist that they are not."
Very pointless. Needs more point. What is your point? Is your point intangible?
'Intellectual property is still property, regardless of its "imaginary" existence.'
Calling them the same thing clears everything up. It's a wonder that they don't just do away with the word 'Intellectual' altogether to avoid confusion.
"Perhaps it seems imaginary for two reasons: 1) general consumers never had to deal with intellectual property before the digital age and are justifiably ignorant of its importance"
That's a very helpful and profound load of bollocks. Please explain why it is important before you attribute ignorance to a portion of the population you pulled from between your buttocks.
"and 2) society has developed a tremendously tight bond between property and tangibility, making them seem inseparable, perhaps due to the lack of exposure to intellectual property (though art and music have always been around)."
To summarise: society believes property is tangible due to lack of exposure to something they have been exposed to since time immemorial?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Seems fair.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: "If it's too hard to do then it's not worth doing"?
Because it is more difficult to manage and enforce and hence more EXPENSIVE it should be taxed more so as to pay for its litigation and enforcement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "If it's too hard to do then it's not worth doing"?
No. Legally it has no "property" status. The term "intellectual property" was invented by the holders of government monopoly concessions (which is what these things actually are) as a tool to aid them in their propaganda. Propaganda which is designed to bully lawmakers into extending their rights and to fool the public into believing that these rights extend much further than they actually do!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Because real property and intellectual property is the same thing, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If you grow beautiful roses in your yard, I can look at them and enjoy their beauty, for free. I can take a picture of them too, and keep it to look at later, and even make copies to give to my friends. Even after I do so, you still own your flowers, 100 percent, and are in no way diminished in your ability to do what you want with them. Because recording them, and making digital copies of my recording, are not physically "taking" anything from you. And we all should be fine with that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"Non-imaginary" property is defined by imaginary lines, and those imaginary lines have been the source of disputes dating back to before the modern definition of property. It is unlikely that any property or property right can ever exist without some sort of controversy surrounding it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "If it's too hard to do then it's not worth doing"?
Oh yes, we are supposed to believe that you are somehow less ignorant than the rest of us. All wisdom comes from you and anyone that disagrees with you is, by definition, ignorant, because it is you who gets to determine right from wrong and what the public ought to believe and subscribe to and what kind of laws they ought to support.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: "If it's too hard to do then it's not worth doing"?
Frankly I find most IP maximists, at least the ones here on techdirt, to be dishonest and I see no reason to trust their moral judgment being that they don’t even understand that being dishonest is wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Eminent domain
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Eminent domain
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Eminent domain
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Eminent domain
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
LOL ... thats your third strike, I dont care if you didnt do it, prove you didnt, I say you are guilty and thats all that matters.
Yeah Imaginary property what a wonderful thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
We could broadcast the lawyers hacking each other to pieces ... and oh yeah copyright it so we can collect royalties from now till the end of time minus a day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Tangible and Intangible Property
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The ownership of patents is quite easy to determine as all patents are registered with the USPTO. If a patent lapses for failure to pay maintenance fees, that too is easy to find. Interpreting patents may be somewhat difficult at times, but finding out who owns them is not.
The same is true of trademarks, but finding registration documents is a bit more work because trademark is an area in which both states and the federal government participate. There are, however, the equivalent of title search companies that makes the process easier.
Copyrights used to be the same way. You would search the registration records of the Copyright Office. Unfortunately, when the US ended its 90+ year holdout from adopting what I term the "European System" under the Berne Convention, determining the ownership of a work became in many instances well nigh impossible since registration was eliminated as a requirement for securing a copyright. Even then, however, there was the ameliorating fact that copyright notices were mandated lest copyright be lost. About 1990, however, this requirement was eliminated as the US once more caved to the "European System".
I, for one, continue to believe, as do many others...academics and practitioners alike, that the acts of 1976 and about 1990 were a definite step backwards that converted a relatively predictable system into one where confusion can in many instances rule the day.
Fortunately, there are still a large number of authors who routinely engage in the practice of applying for copyright registrations that are catalogued and can be easily searched. Unfortunately, there is much too large of number of authors who do not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I applaud your ability to speak for so many while posting anonymously. Jibe aside, the act you refer to was Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 (active 1989). Welcome to the discussion.
"Fortunately, there are still a large number of authors who routinely engage in the practice of applying for copyright registrations that are catalogued and can be easily searched. Unfortunately, there is much too large of number of authors who do not."
I understand from Mike's excerpt of the linked article that the issue is with registered copyrights, but that those registrations are claimed to be fraudulent. How would your suggestions of universal registration (as it was in the US before those acts), have avoided this mess?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If the system is to be saved, what do you suggest be done? How can endless resources not be wasted in frivolous law suits over things that were obvious decades ago or things that were in the public domain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Eminent domain
If, I break my arm while trespassing on your property I can sue you. If I break my arm while checking out of a site that has one click to check out, can I sue Amazon? There is no liability to IP as there is every other form of ownership.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Eminent domain
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tangible and Intangible Property
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Eminent domain
If you license a patent and your hurt yourself in the process of using it, more than likely you are on your own - unless it was evident that the only way to practice the patent leads to harm, in which case there is probably a suit of some sort there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Eminent domain
If you license a patent and your hurt yourself in the process of using it, more than likely you are on your own - unless it was evident that the only way to practice the patent leads to harm, in which case there is probably a suit of some sort there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tangible and Intangible Property
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Eminent domain
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Property itself is more imaginary than people realize. Just how do you know you "own" the land you are on? Well, the only way anyone knows is through pieces of paper. If the paper is missing - or fraudulent - then you may not own the land at all, or it becomes murky, as has happened many times in the past, either intentionally or unintentionally.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Eminent domain
http://blog.iphandbook.org/?p=338
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: "If it's too hard to do then it's not worth doing"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tangible and Intangible Property
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Tangible and Intangible Property
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: "If it's too hard to do then it's not worth doing"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: "If it's too hard to do then it's not worth doing"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: "If it's too hard to do then it's not worth doing"?
People have been coming up with new ideas and mathematical constructs for a very long time. To the extent that these things can be said to be property the exposure to them has been around for quite some time. So I see no reason to attribute our intuitive logic that no one is owed a monopoly on anything to the lack of exposure to new ideas (or to this kind of alleged property).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "If it's too hard to do then it's not worth doing"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maintenance_fee_%28patent%29
Also see
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/advanced-patent/maintenance-fees/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tangible and Intangible Property
and how big is the IP? is it 3 feet by 3 feet? 6 feet by 6 feet?
"Of course, we know that all land is taxed (with a few exceptions), so any land where IP is stored must be taxed also."
You are taxed on the land that your refrigerator is stored but where is the monopoly privilege on the creation of said refrigerator stored?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Eminent domain
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's finite.
"At the time North America was claimed it must have seemed that land was quasi-infinite. It was certainly as cheap as a downloaded song is now, even though the people laying claim to the land did not own it (interesting parallel there!)."
and what does this have to do with the ability to make copies of something?
"Property itself is more imaginary than people realize."
Uhm.. I think not.
"Just how do you know you "own" the land you are on?"
Whether or not one "owns" land maybe imaginary but this doesn't make the land itself imaginary.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
As if though *you* aren't.
Pot, meet kettle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
No, it wasn't considered to be infinite. People had been fighting wars over land for a long time because it wasn't considered "infinite".
It was certainly as cheap as a downloaded song is now, even though the people laying claim to the land did not own it (interesting parallel there!).
North America for a dollar? I don't think so. Hey, you wanna buy a bridge?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: "If it's too hard to do then it's not worth doing"?
I fear this line is intentionally blurred in part by the use of 'Intellectual Property' in the titles of various statutes. If you search the 2009 US copyright law you will find hundreds of references to Intellectual Property, mostly when referring to other documents. You will also find the term used repeatedly in the NET act of 1997
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Pot, meet kettle."
I only claim to speak for myself. Plus, there is a difference between anonymity and knowing someone's real name. I have always posted using this account which makes me not anonymous in the context of this site.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, it wasn't considered to be infinite. People had been fighting wars over land for a long time because it wasn't considered "infinite"."
Just because people were fighting wars over the land does not make the land seem non-infinite. One of the themes that appears in literature of the time was how important it was to "open up" the land and how abundant it seemed. The primary reason for the wars was not because the land was finite, but because multiple groups claimed the same abundant land.
"It was certainly as cheap as a downloaded song is now, even though the people laying claim to the land did not own it (interesting parallel there!).
North America for a dollar? I don't think so. Hey, you wanna buy a bridge?"
Uhhh...know a lot about history, do you? Millions of acres in North America were given away for FREE. How much cheaper can a song be than FREE?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's finite."
It may be "finite," but we know that today. Read the literature of the era where the North American continent was described as having limitless resources. The people of the TIME considered the continent to be infinite.
""At the time North America was claimed it must have seemed that land was quasi-infinite. It was certainly as cheap as a downloaded song is now, even though the people laying claim to the land did not own it (interesting parallel there!)."
and what does this have to do with the ability to make copies of something?"
I give up. What does that have to do with making a copy of something, since you brought it up?
""Property itself is more imaginary than people realize."
Uhm.. I think not."
Ummm...I think so, and you offered no evidence otherwise.
""Just how do you know you "own" the land you are on?"
Whether or not one "owns" land maybe imaginary but this doesn't make the land itself imaginary."
I did not say land was imaginary, I said ownership was. Two different things. Pay attention.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tangible and Intangible Property
and how big is the IP? is it 3 feet by 3 feet? 6 feet by 6 feet?"
First, you have to specify the IP. If the IP is for a hybrid transmission, then the IP in the hybrid transmission is about 1 foot by 1 foot by 3 feet.
""Of course, we know that all land is taxed (with a few exceptions), so any land where IP is stored must be taxed also."
You are taxed on the land that your refrigerator is stored but where is the monopoly privilege on the creation of said refrigerator stored?"
I do not know where the "monopoly privilege" on the creation of the refrigerator is stored. How do you store a "monopoly privilege." How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? That seems just as relevant to the conversation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "If it's too hard to do then it's not worth doing"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "If it's too hard to do then it's not worth doing"?
As for being taxed more, thanks to a recent post by Mr. Masnick we learned that the average award per suit is around $3 million. Since the average cost of a suit is around $3.5 million, it seems as though plaintiffs would figure out that filing a suit is valuable for only one thing, and that is stopping someone from copying your design - which was the original right conferred by the Constitution. Unfortunately, NPE's gain a higher average award per suit, making it profitable for NPE's to litigate. However, this too shall pass.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: "If it's too hard to do then it's not worth doing"?
Richard, you are in error. The term "intellectual property" appears to have first been used at the time of the founding of the Swiss Federal Office for Intellectual Property. When the administrative secretariats established by the Paris Convention and Berne Convention merged in 1893, they also adopted the term as well.
So the term was not invented by "holders of government monopoly concessions;" the term was invented by the government.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Tangible and Intangible Property
There are accounting methods whereby you could allocate part of the taxes to that refrigerator for costing purposes, but that does *not* mean that you are actually paying taxes on the refrigerator.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tangible and Intangible Property
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What a load. If you aren't anonymous, then give us your your full real name, phone number and home address to start with.
Waiting...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Me too!
-Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
People don't tend to fight and die for infinite resources.
One of the themes that appears in literature of the time was how important it was to "open up" the land and how abundant it seemed.
Money is abundant, still it isn't infinite. Big difference.
The primary reason for the wars was not because the land was finite, but because multiple groups claimed the same abundant land.
The same land because it wasn't infinite.
Uhhh...know a lot about history, do you? Millions of acres in North America were given away for FREE. How much cheaper can a song be than FREE?
Talk about not knowing history. Land grants were almost always given as rewards or repayments of some sort. Such as for political favors or homesteading. That's not exactly "free".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: "If it's too hard to do then it's not worth doing"?
Really? The Swiss were using the English language at that time? Interesting.
So the term was not invented by "holders of government monopoly concessions;" the term was invented by the government.
Oh I see, you think Techdirt is a Swiss site. You are mistaken. It is a U.S. site and around here we don't consider the Swiss government to be "the government".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: "If it's too hard to do then it's not worth doing"?
For a complete and not quite finished history on the subject read Justin Hughes' article on the subject. Some interesting snippets are that it pre-dates the founding of the Swiss Federal Office for Intellectual Property and originally it only referred to copyright.
One thing's for sure, it was not created by any English speaking government.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "If it's too hard to do then it's not worth doing"?
Wow. Someone does not understand statistics at all.
Average is a meaningless number when you know the distribution... And with patent awards, it's a very, very broad distribution. Nobodies filing patent suits based on the average -- but on the idea that they might get one of those $500 million awards...
Seriously, you must know this. Arguing otherwise is blatantly dishonest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Eminent domain
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "If it's too hard to do then it's not worth doing"?
Furthermore, if you look at the peak awards, not only are they also dropping, but the majority of awards are being dropped significantly on appeal - and we appear to be at the start of a trend in the downward direction for awards.
People are clearly unhappy that a few small players are causing such huge distortions in a system that has traditionally worked fairly well, and there is just as clearly a judicial movement to reign those abuses in since congress seems unable to do so.
I am sure you are as aware of these facts as I am. To argue otherwise would be blatantly dishonest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "If it's too hard to do then it's not worth doing"?
Wow, what an incredible paper. I have never seen a more thorough analysis of the origin of the usage of "intellectual property."
The entire paper is quite a good read, but several things stood out - all from the paper:
(1) Intellectual property has been used to refer to patents and copyrights since at least the latter half of the 19th century. The phrase seemed to include trademarks at a later date.
(2) It seems that the primary references to "intellectual property" came from the government. Indeed, there seemed to not have been much, if any, mention of the word in private quarters until after the government began adopting the term.
(3) The use of "intellectual property" as a propaganda device seems pretty well debunked by this paper. After all, "intellectual property" replaced "literary property." As the paper notes, the use of "property" to refer to creative works of the mind was in existence well before the change to "intellectual" property.
Further, the term "intellectual property" was uniformly used in Spain to refer to copyrights for a long time, and yet there is no evidence that copyright grew any faster in
Spain than elsewhere, further evidence that the term appears to be given little propaganda weight.
(4) Though the more common usage was in Europe, there were two early uses in the United States that seem to indicate an umbrella meaning. Both uses were in courts, one in 1845 and the first citation by the Supreme Court in 1878. So, it might be a bit hasty to say that "intellectual property" as an umbrella term was of non-English speaking country origin.
The paper also points out that the U.S. is one of the few countries where the various aspects of intellectual property were organized into one cluster from the very beginning, which would seem to be a driver for a common term. Once again, the source of this terminology was government rather than those who might benefit from marginal propagand avalue.
(5) There has been opposition to the term "property" since at least the early part of the 19th century. The reason was that property seems to imply perpetual. Augustin-Charles Renouard thought it would be better to call copyright a privilege to denote the true nature of copyright, including the intent to limit the scope of copyright.
However, Eugene Pouillet pointed out that since royal privileges were mostly perpetual, he was unsure of whether privilege was much different from property.
(6) It seems like the U.S. House of Representatives made a fairly definitive statement regarding copyright being property in 1830:
"...[t]hough the nature of literary property is peculiar, it is not the less real and valuable"; a 1838 U.S. Senate report - expressly saying it was getting into the natural rights issues -- described copyright as 'property of a peculiar character, not absolute but special, subject to conditions and limitations."
(7) The following paragraph in the paper is also interesting in its discussion of Joseph Marie Portalis, who argued that copyright was also property but that such property could be limited in duration "[t]he property right can be limited to varying degrees in its effects without changing its nature."
(8) In the paragraph after, Eugene Pouillet pointed out that copyright is founded in natural law:
"That this property is of a special nature, that it has required particular regulation, and that, while having its source in natural law, it has demanded organization different from the organization of ordinary property, that is obvious."
This paper is a great read. I recommend it to any student of intellectual property and its origins. Thanks to Vivaelamor for pointing it out!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "If it's too hard to do then it's not worth doing"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
People don't tend to fight and die for infinite resources."
Ah, but just because you fight and die over something does not prove that it is finite. Christians have been fighting each other over interpretations of the bible for centuries, and as far as I know, biblical knowledge is an infinite resource.
"One of the themes that appears in literature of the time was how important it was to "open up" the land and how abundant it seemed.
Money is abundant, still it isn't infinite. Big difference."
Non sequitur. Money is not land.
"The primary reason for the wars was not because the land was finite, but because multiple groups claimed the same abundant land.
The same land because it wasn't infinite."
But, many of these groups could have aimed a few compass points in another direction and they would have been fine. Different question: for all intents and purposes the water in the ocean is limitless, and yet people fight over it. Why fight for something was is infinite for a practical viewpoint? Because there are reasons to fight that have nothing to do with finite or infinite - there is the good old "principle of the thing."
"Uhhh...know a lot about history, do you? Millions of acres in North America were given away for FREE. How much cheaper can a song be than FREE?
Talk about not knowing history. Land grants were almost always given as rewards or repayments of some sort. Such as for political favors or homesteading. That's not exactly "free"."
*sigh* The history of homesteading and land grants goes back to the beginning of the United States. There are even modern day examples...
A community in Ellesworth, Kansas is giving away free land. The only requirement is the same requirement since the beginning, essentially improve the land; i.e., build a house. Imagine that, free land to build a home!
http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/22/real_estate/buying_selling/thursday_freeland/
The Homestead Act dates to 1862. It provided that ANYONE, let me say this slowly, ANY ONE, could homestead 160 acres. No reward, no payment, no political favors. If, at the end of five years, the land had been improved, which typically meant farming and/or a house, title to the land passed to the homesteader. I believe more than 250 million acres were given away under this program to more than 1 millon people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Act
Perhaps one of the most famous of the free giveaways was the the Oklahoma land rush. With the exception of a few cheaters, the land was available to anyone who get stake a claim, no political favors, no rewards, no repayments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Run_of_1889
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pseudonymous. If you want to call it anonymous instead, that's fine by me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "If it's too hard to do then it's not worth doing"?
Copyright is an intellectual privilege that lasts for centuries.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "If it's too hard to do then it's not worth doing"?
You should ask the people filing the lawsuits -- but the obvious answer is "yes, very much." The problem, as you must know (you can't honestly be that clueless about human nature, can you??) is that everyone filing the lawsuit overestimates their own chances and the likelihood of winning $612 million.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As a reward for improving the land. That's not "free".
The Homestead Act dates to 1862. It provided that ANYONE, let me say this slowly, ANY ONE, could homestead 160 acres. No reward, no payment, no political favors.
Only as a reward for homesteading the land. And even then it was limited because land was recognized as not being "infinite". Again, not free.
Perhaps one of the most famous of the free giveaways was the the Oklahoma land rush. With the exception of a few cheaters, the land was available to anyone who get stake a claim, no political favors, no rewards, no repayments.
Read your own reference: "Provided a settler lived on the land and improved it, the settler could then receive the title to the land." So it was actually as a reward for homesteading. Again, not free.
You seem to be construing "free" as anything you don't pay money for, which is dishonest. For example, many people go to work for the reward of money. However, I doubt that they consider that to be "free money" just because they didn't have to buy it with other money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
OK then, I guess I'm just "pseudonymous" too then. Plenty of people know me personally, so I'm not really anonymous either, huh? So that makes me the same as you, pot. Or is it kettle?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "If it's too hard to do then it's not worth doing"?
If the current trend continues, then some time in the next year or so even the average award for NPE's will be insufficient to make a suit worthwhile, and the peak awards should keep dropping. There are already web sites where litigation attorneys are counseling clients not to file patent lawsuits if your only goal is to make money, because patent lawsuits are not winners. I also very recently saw an article that notes that litigation attorneys are cutting way back on taking patent cases on contingency.
The one possible curve ball is patent reform, which has included all sorts of limits on patent litigation. That would really put a stake through most suits, leaving only the most egregious cases.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "If it's too hard to do then it's not worth doing"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "If it's too hard to do then it's not worth doing"?
Then, realistically, copyright lasts for centuries. I can't wait for it to last for millenniums!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Tangible and Intangible Property
Buy a copy machine and put it in your business, it should be added to your personal property tax return and the business will have to pay personal property taxes on it for the life of the copy machine (life being the accounting life, so 5-7 years depending on depreciation method).
So yes, if you own a business you should be paying property tax on your refrigerator that's used in that business (depending on the state, I'm referring to WA state laws, but most are similar if not more onerous).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "If it's too hard to do then it's not worth doing"?
The article "The Political Economy of Intellectual Property Law" by William M. Landes and Richard A. Posner" discussed copyright lengths analytically. They pointed out that patents have a sort of self-regulating feature because companies that patent recognize increasing the length of patents decreases the speed that they can get access to the technology of others, which means that there is almost always as many people for shorter patent length as there is longer length, so the length stays the same.
The same tendency does not seem to hold true for copyrights, though there are other mechanisms involved. One of their best points was that Disney, which has benefited hugely from the public domain, was also one of the companies that pushed hard for extending copyright length. Landes and Posner speculated that the reason is that Disney got insufficient benefit from public domain to outweigh the benefit from lengthened privilege.
They pointed out that there seemed to be very little balancing force against extending copyright length. So, scary as it seems, there actually is the possibility of "forever minus a day," even though that is not actually in the best interests of music publishers and studios; they are just not sufficiently forward-thinking enough to realize it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Tangible and Intangible Property
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "If it's too hard to do then it's not worth doing"?
Artists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Tangible and Intangible Property
Or in other words, my imagination is going to become your reality.
Thanks for the laugh Ronald McDonald, the world always need a good clown (even the Amish!)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Best suggestion yet!
I think this may be the best idea in regards to Intellectual Property on Techdirt ever!
I have thought the same thing, but Anon put it so well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Best suggestion yet!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anonymous Coward isn't so much a name as it is a label. You'd be like an author with the pen name 'not known'. Oh wait, sorry; I didn't realise that you hadn't bothered to look the word up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
See "Amiga" before calling this "complicated"
http://sites.google.com/site/freeamiga/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: See "Amiga" before calling this "complicated"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: See "Amiga" before calling this "complicated"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright
A comprehensive search was done by the rightful owners in the 1998-2002.
Carbdirt received notice of infringement in years in 2002-2003.
Easy for carbdirt music to run cross country and sue from NY claiming song titles which they don't have a signed copyright transfer from the authors. Check out the federal court verdict entered against Irma Loose in September, October of 2009 and against May-Loo in April 2009.
A little research will uncover their scam.
These guys are trying to overturn copyright law
[ link to this | view in thread ]