Developers Trying To Treat Houses Like Copyright; Want A Cut Of Every Future Resale

from the bangs-head-against-wall dept

Thu, Apr 1st 2010 9:33am — Mike Masnick

We've been noticing a trend in recent years of companies that sell physical goods trying to figure out ways to have those goods get some of the "advantages" of digital goods. For example, with physical products, once you sell it, in theory, the seller no longer owns a piece of the good. But with digital goods, they still hold the copyright, and often try to limit what you can do with the product even though you thought you "bought" it. So we've been disturbed by the rise of things like artist resale rights, which take away the right of first sale on artwork, and require you to pay the original artist every time you sell the product.

We've pointed out how this really only benefits wealthy artists, while harming up and coming artists -- despite those who support such laws claiming exactly the opposite. Their argument is that if a poor artist sells a piece of artwork on the cheap, and it later appreciates in value, he should get a cut of that increase in value. That argument fundamentally misunderstands economics, however. By adding that, you are effectively taking away the potential benefit to a buyer. You are lowering the possible return, making it less likely for them to invest in the first place. And we already have better mechanisms to help artists capture value if their older (cheaply sold) artwork becomes more valuable: it's called creating and selling newer artwork for much more money.

When Australia moved forward with just such a plan for artist resale rights at the end of last year, we asked mockingly, why not apply the same thing to every product, so that any time you sold it, you had to pay everyone else who owned it. In fact, we noted:

Imagine if that were the case with cars or houses as well? Who would ever think that was reasonable?

Well, apparently some financial firm in Texas think it's reasonable. As a few people have submitted, they're trying to convince developers to set up a system where they get paid every time a house gets sold and resold:

Freehold Capital Partners, a company started in Texas, is selling developers across the country on a plan that would attach a private transfer fee to homes, allowing developers to profit for generations.

The fee, written into neighborhood restrictions, would encumber the property for 99 years and throw 1 percent of the sale price back to the developer -- or his or her estate or another investor -- and Freehold each time the home changes hands.

My apologies for thinking that such a scenario was an "obviously ridiculous" one. Not surprisingly, Freehold is using intellectual property as the basis for its plan:

"Just like authors who write books and musicians who write songs that will be enjoyed for generations to come, those who improve property are also engaged in the creative process, and the economics of the transaction should reflect that reality," a Freehold brochure says.

Thankfully, people are protesting this, noting that it will drive down the price of homes, make it harder to sell them, harm neighborhoods and greatly "muddy" questions of ownership. Of course, all of that applies to copyright as well, but we won't go there just yet.

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, houses, real estate, resale

137 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

rw (profile), 1 Apr 2010 @ 8:40am

At the end of the line
So, in the future when the home is abandoned or demolished, the developer or the heirs pay for the cleanup costs?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
pixelpusher220 (profile), 1 Apr 2010 @ 9:38am

I love this. If we should pay artists when the value of previously created works go up, then they should likewise pay the owners of the artwork when the value of it goes down.

So since I can create unlimited copies of my CDs, the value of the CDs is now effectively zero. I await full reimbursement for my media collection from the RIAA.

And I dearly hope this is actually an April Fools joke...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Dan (profile), 1 Apr 2010 @ 9:43am

Re:
The linked article went up two days ago.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DH's love child, 1 Apr 2010 @ 9:45am

Re:
@pixelpusher:
Right on!! If they're going to make us pay when the value goes up, then THEY have to reimburse us when it goes down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NAMELESS.ONE, 1 Apr 2010 @ 9:48am

hey what about tool makers
why cant the factory workers get in on this too.
EVERY USE of that hammer they made for you is a lost sale
BUY a hammer each time or pay up

add this for cars, trucks EVERYTHING
then when we are all broke cause to move 2 feet costs us 5 million dollars , you will see how STUPID COPYRIGHTS have become
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 9:53am

Home building is destroying the construction industry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 9:56am

No good can come of this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another User, 1 Apr 2010 @ 10:04am

If this actually happens then I am only going to sell the land at the same price as I would with the house and if you buy the land at that high price I will include a free house. Then there is no profit to give from the house.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NAMELESS.ONE, 1 Apr 2010 @ 10:05am

Home building is destroying the construction industry.-CROCK
"Yes, folks, home building is killing the construction industry. Why won't Congress and the USTR deal with this pernicious problem?"

Hell yeah! And let's not forget those that are REALLY responsible. Yes, I'm talking about that most evil person who hides behind that age old lie, "But I'm not DOING the home building, I'm just SHOWING them how!"... See More

Yes, folks, I'm talking about TIM the TOOL MAN. Can you imagine how much less fun home building would threaten our very way of life if this men women and people, these evil, vile builderists weren't plagueing us with their garbage?

Which is why we are introducing a new bill, US Bill: Centrifugal Return Of Construction Kraft-CROCK for short. Included in the language of CROCK supporters everywhere is 3rd party culpability placed on this crocheting Tim Allen( no relation to lilly Allen thank god), this Tim Allen with here nonsense about TOOLTIME TOOLS being good, and....christ. It doesn't matter, CROCK will take him down too!

And here's the key: we can grow the construction business everywhere! All we the US Trade Org. has to do is make this an international treaty / executive order! That way we can make sure that our trade partners are every bit as CROCKed as we are!

You mark my words. CROCKs will have their day. In the meantime, I've got a Hammer From Canadian tire and i just made a bench to put my home cooking and dvdr collection on....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 10:06am

So are you forbidden from remodeling by the covenant. After all if you make changes to the hose it no longer embodies the developers ideas and therefore would qualify for a separate copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 10:09am

Re:
Renovations would be transformative of the works in question, and thus fair use.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Danny, 1 Apr 2010 @ 10:11am

So...
Does this mean that as a person who works in tech support everytime an end user has to apply a solution I told them about (assuming they can do it themselves, user rights and all that) I get paid again, even after I leave the company?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 10:14am

Re: Re:
Aren't all renovations just derivative work?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NAMELESS.ONE, 1 Apr 2010 @ 10:15am

YES comeon we can add copyrights to everyhting
yea see i see this as a true balance
if everyone gets residuals think about this:

go read up on inflation
and hyper inflation and see how truly dangerous this will be
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 10:17am

. For example, with physical products, once you sell it, in theory, the seller no longer owns a piece of the good.

tell that to sony. They got rid of the install other os option on my ps3. They told me I don't have to update. I just won't to be able to play ALL my games online or log into the ps network.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
musterion (profile), 1 Apr 2010 @ 10:22am

Surely this an April 1 troll article
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 10:26am

Perfect!!
This is great. Any improvements I make to my house will keep paying me in perpetuity with each sale. Since the improvements are my art I can charge whatever I want for them. I can easily cover the 1% to the developer with a little bit of my overpriced art.

April Fools.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek, 1 Apr 2010 @ 10:32am

Hey Mike,
Don't apologize for "thinking that such a scenario was an "obviously ridiculous" one."

Just because it's happened doesn't mean it's not obviously ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 10:33am

welcome to the 1st of april, techdirt style.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ess, 1 Apr 2010 @ 10:36am

SO EFFING TRUE
It's ridiculous everyone wants to write one song, or make one piece of art, or build one house and retire a billionaire. J.D. Salinger is a great example of what happens when you have a hit single. He might have had two great books if he earned less!! It's the demise of creativity via copyright; seriously the only creative people around anymore will be the lawyers. Who do you think will enforcing all this s&^t? They never fail to give themselves work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ron, 1 Apr 2010 @ 10:37am

Of Course ...
... the developer will also refund a portion of the original sale price should the house devalue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jupiter (profile), 1 Apr 2010 @ 10:42am

This is bone-headed
When I buy music, I'm not actually buying the master tapes - I'm buying a copy. The owner of the master tapes is given an exclusive right to copy the music and sell the copies. As a consumer, I can buy the copy for a pittance, or splurge and offer to buy the master tapes. If the owner sells me the master tapes (along with the right to copy them) they don't expect to keep getting paid for future sales.

We can discuss this when they can make copies of buildings (along with the location that gives the house its relative value).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish (profile), 1 Apr 2010 @ 10:47am

"Just like authors who write books and musicians who write songs that will be enjoyed for generations to come, those who improve property are also engaged in the creative process"

Implicit in that statement are these questions:

Why should only artists and inventors get government granted monopolies? Why can't we all get them?

I'm glad this issue is coming up because by asking "why" some entities get government granted monopolies, we can start asking whether they should get them. Maybe this utterly ridiculous situation will start that dialog.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mike42 (profile), 1 Apr 2010 @ 10:52am

Not that new
My original deed to my first house forbade selling the house to someone who was not "a member of the white race." These freaks are just following in the footsteps of the many freaks before them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
greenbird (profile), 1 Apr 2010 @ 10:56am

What about the Architect
Shouldn't the architect get a cut too? Designing a house is creative work. And the engineers who designed the windows...and the doors. And the guys who poured the concrete. There's a certain amount of creativity in how you mix, smooth and level concrete. And the carpet guys. Figuring out the cuts and seeming and edging carpet is creative work. What about the guys who created the software used by the all of the above. Creating software most assuredly is a creative process.

Hmmm...this is never gonna end. Everyone should get paid anytime anything get sold.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Overcast (profile), 1 Apr 2010 @ 10:58am

No one should get a cut of any re-sale, unless it was contractually agreed to at the time of original purchase.

If they want a 'cut' of my home sale, then they can also shoulder some of the liability and maintenance, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RD, 1 Apr 2010 @ 10:59am

I CALLED IT!
hahahahhahahahahhahaha

(deep breath)

bwahahahahahahahaaha!!

I called this a couple of years ago, when these "ownership rights" ideas started to get really crazy just in the creative/music/movie/publication fields. I KNEW some asshat would try to push this through, though I thought it would take the route of purchasing a congressman. That will be next, make no mistake. Before the decade is out, expect this idea to be proposed as an extension of copyright in the next "protect the copyright on mickey mouse" revision of copyright that is sure to come.

The question on something like this is, since "the public" would be giving up some of its rights in exchange for this, what does "the public" get in return? Home building prices cut in half? The land goes back to the public? Oh no silly human, of course not. These things are built to work ONE WAY, and in one direction ONLY: ENTIRELY for the rights holder. The other side of the equation, that is supposed to BALANCE public need with private interests, get NOTHING.

This is the goal of copyright maximalists, make no mistake. They want nothing more than complete and total control and "ownership", all on their side of the equation, while squeezing "the public" as much as possible and giving NOTHING in return. If they could, they wouldnt even allow "the public" to have the item in question (book, movie, etc), they would only allow one-time-paid-each-time use, with infinite (no expiration) time on the rights. You will see more lobbying in this ultimate direction over the next few years, mark my words.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Overcast (profile), 1 Apr 2010 @ 11:01am

Re: What about the Architect
Hmmm...this is never gonna end. Everyone should get paid anytime anything get sold.

lol, only as long as they take on liability and maintenance on said items as well.

If someone is saying they should 'get a cut' - that means they have a 'vested interest' in the item. If they have a 'vested interest' in an item, they should also have liability and responsibility to said item.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 1 Apr 2010 @ 11:06am

Re: Surely this an April 1 troll article
I wish it were an April fools joke, but sadly, it is not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 1 Apr 2010 @ 11:16am

Re: So...
Shit, if that worked I could retire now, and I'm 26.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
greenbird (profile), 1 Apr 2010 @ 11:16am

Re: Re: What about the Architect
lol, only as long as they take on liability and maintenance on said items as well.

So book and song writers and movie makers have liability and maintenance responsibility for the products they sell us? So if a book or movie has factual errors they should fix it and ship me another copy for free? Song writers and performers should have to ensure my 8 tracks are still playable on my new iPod? Cause those 8 tracks I bought 40 years ago are completely useless now.

If the concrete has lumps in it that's just part of the creative process. Oh and you're only allowed to look at the parts of the house I want you to see before you buy it. No sampling allowed. That's illegal. And if part of it falls down, well that's just too bad for you. You just need to repurchase that part of the house so you can actually use it again.

See there's all these special laws...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 11:25am

Re: Not that new
mine too actually
im not sure exactly but i think the gist was
no Italians no Jews no generally no one i(presumably the developer or original owner) dont like
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 11:25am

I live in Texas and I think this is GREAT idea! It is great because if the developer wants 1% of the future resale value provided they also pay a 1% share of the
mortgage payment
insurance
property tax
maintenace cost
association dues.

And of course should I end up selling my property at loss the developer will redeem to me 1% of my net loss.

Surely they don't to have their cake and eat it too?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 1 Apr 2010 @ 11:27am

What A New and Innovative Business Model
All they need now is a patent on it and the cycle is complete . . .
[ link to this | view in thread ]
greenbird (profile), 1 Apr 2010 @ 11:30am

Re:
So are you forbidden from remodeling by the covenant. After all if you make changes to the hose it no longer embodies the developers ideas and therefore would qualify for a separate copyright.

No actually that's a derivative work and you have to pay them everytime you make a change...along with everytime you have company over. Cause then it's a performance of there work sharing it with other people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 11:31am

Re:
Now this is an April Fool's Day joke:

http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2010/04/01/apple-buys-emi/

The story since the purchase of Lala has been cloud-based listening. But now that Apple owns not only the Beatles, but the Beach Boys and the Band (what Steve refers to as the "Three B’s"), the company plans to drive down the price of music at the iTunes Store. Yes, within thirty days, every EMI track will be a dime.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
robphelan (profile), 1 Apr 2010 @ 11:34am

I read this in our local san antonio newspaper a couple of days ago - in the comments section, developers actually argued that this would incentivize them to invest MORE in the development area and community.

I almost spit diet coke all over my keyboard when I read that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 11:38am

Re: Re:
When one treats real property like unreal "property" this is where one goes . . . .
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NAMELESS.ONE, 1 Apr 2010 @ 11:40am

ADDON throttling and capping HOME use
thats right folks to save the environment we are going to cap and throttle your use fo the house to 5% during anytime your home. PICK a spot and lie there suckers. AND every time you use ANYTHING in the house we will have a coin slot so you can pay.

OH and when will opensource housing begin?
OPEN source tools , opensource home building ( habitat for humanity? )
opensource ....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 11:42am

Re: ADDON throttling and capping HOME use
It's not Home Throttling. It's reasonable spacial management.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 11:46am

Re: Re: ADDON throttling and capping HOME use
So what's the DRM on an actual piece of property? The actual key is inside the actual lock but in order to open it you need the password which is written on the actual key?

This makes total sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 11:48am

Re:
Not actually too far from the truth in some places. We bought our house here in Vancouver, BC about 5 years ago. At the same time a very similar property sold on the same block for about $12k less. It was torn down. I guess that rendered the value of the building about 5% of the total property value.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NAMELESS.ONE, 1 Apr 2010 @ 11:49am

open source homes
want something freely here is what we'll give you.

http://photoblog.mohamedsomji.com/images/20080812013612_dar_shantytown005.jpg
[ link to this | view in thread ]
darryl, 1 Apr 2010 @ 11:50am

Need to understand copyright, and patents
Seems not many people really understand how copyright and patents work.

You think when you buy a physical item you are allowed to make copies of it and sell them ? no you're not a motor car would contain a great deal of copyrighted and patented technology, you pay that copyright and patent fee in the purchase price of the car.

Just like any other product, you dont truly OWN it, you are not given a right to do whatever you want with the items you purchase.

Just because you can make a copy of some software or music and give it away is no different to theft. You are profeting off someone elses works. Even if you give it away, you get some goodwill or some return for giving it away. (the person you gave it too might like you more).

But you do not reward to actual creator of the software or music for their works. If it costs $100 million dollars to make a great movie, that money comes from sales of the movie, people paying to watch it. What other mechanism is there to ensure that kind of money is available for the next movie.

Imagin, if you got you're way, there would be no movie or music industry, it would be able to be compared to Open Source Vs proprietary. Some people thing giving away others efforts is a good model, but open source has for the past 20 years been unable to develop an effective commercial model based on giving away you're goods and services.

Plus, it's the law, if you dont like the present laws you live by, then go somewhere else, just because you like certain laws and rules, does not mean you are allowed to break those laws.

So get over it, and start to work in the framework that the rest of the planet works under. It seems to have worked better than anything else proposed for all of human history.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sean T Henry (profile), 1 Apr 2010 @ 11:53am

I think that it is a good idea since the developer essentially owns 1% of the property that will then require them to insure the property. In doing so if you live in the house long enough the amount paid by them for insurance will equal the amount they get back.

Also it will open them up for liability if someone gets hurt on the property and sues they will be brought up on charges. Sine the developer has more to lose they will hire the best Lawyers they can to defend the property.

What if the person who partially owns the property stops paying and there are leans on the house then the developer will have to deal with that.

It IS a great idea!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NAMELESS.ONE, 1 Apr 2010 @ 11:54am

DRM on doors has existed for years
I worked for a company that made steel doors and frames , it was a monopoly they had locks that used 8-16 bit encryption and had special keys for each door.

YOU cant lose one and get it remade youd have to get the whole lock replaced.

DRM in this case should be DDRM
Digital Door rights management, and these doorlocks were for prisons and higher security places NOT YOUR HOUSE.

DRM on other areas of the house all things will have a code that will be told to you via a wireless connection to the rights holders automated billing department , when you pay the code will be releases and you can then open the drawer and get your fork to eat cereal, BUT you will also before you eat cereal have to pay again to have the cereal YOU DON'T OWN IT WE DO

department of new age slavery services
DONASS
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 11:55am

Re: I CALLED IT!
You should challenge their right to use your idea!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hoeppner, 1 Apr 2010 @ 11:58am

Why don't they just lease the house or rent it instead?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 12:34pm

Re: Need to understand copyright, and patents
Nothing in a car is "copyrighted" . Copyright is expressly for artistic works. Cars are industrial works which do not have standing for copyright.

PS : Home car building is destroying the Automotive industry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 12:35pm

Re:
The EULA for the house forbids it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 12:36pm

Rent or lease?
What about 1% of that rent ?
Sounds like a continuous cash flow to developer.
Why restrict it to sells?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NAMELESS.ONE, 1 Apr 2010 @ 12:38pm

hey why stop at 1% why not 50% of the resell value
A) people want to buy homes when they can afford to NOT buy into leases and scams like this obviously is. ITS one of the few remaining htings YOU get to really own and do mostly what you want within reason on.

dance naked in your back yard if you have a fence
hold satanic rituals and howl at the moon up to 11PM

ya know MINE ALL MINE stuff
wodner how donald trump and these other big business guys would feel about the developer now coming in and saying YOU OWE US ALL MONEY we built it you sold it cash now please
see where it leads

and lke i said in title why stop at 1% why not 5% or ten
HELL why not 99%

I'll tell you why this wont fly cause anything like htat and its practically a lease.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 12:45pm

Re: So...
No, because the rights to the solution belong to the employer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ronnie, 1 Apr 2010 @ 12:47pm

What about remodeling done to the house
What if the house was remodeled? Would the owner of the time of the remodel get a kick back also?

This is another stupid idea!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 1:07pm

Re: What about remodeling done to the house
If the owner is remodeling, then the "building rights" owner would conceivably have to pay for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
KaiserSote, 1 Apr 2010 @ 1:32pm

Ghostbusters teaches life lessons again
You had to think of the Stay Puft Marshmallow man didn't you. Now what do you do when someone asks you if you're a god?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Darryl, 1 Apr 2010 @ 1:37pm

Much is copyrighted in a car
ALl the design drawings, technical innovations would be both copyrighted (the design plans) and possibly patented.

Im sure the patent documents themselves are copyrighted, as are the circuit layout of the electronics systems, the software would probably contain patents, and the documentation of the software, like the documentation of the gearbox would be copyrighted.

You cannot buy a car from one manufacturer, pull apart a critical component and make an exact copy of it.

All the engineering math, testing, metalurgy would be contained in copyrighted form.

Just as the very name of the product would be copyrighted, basically nothing in a car would not be under patents or copyright. Again, you pay for that development and copyright when you purchase the car.

A photograph can be copyrighted, as can a work of fiction, with a photo, you might be using software in you're digital camera that has patents on it, but that does not affect you copyright, right of YOU"RE works.

So again, you guys need to start to get more of a clue about the subjects you claim to know so much about... really.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NAMELESS.ONE, 1 Apr 2010 @ 1:44pm

yes i actually can copy the car
i could if i had the resources make a complete duplicate of the entire car, for private use. I just cant sell it.

thats fair use no? thats non commercial copying. THEY didn't lose a sale cause i was never gonna pay for one. I spent my resources building it and my resources fabricating and my resources NOT there's.

in fact you have parts makers doing commercial selling of parts fo rcars you drive now that are not owned by the manufacturer.

explain that one. SO we need ot end all partsmakers now that aren't being made by manufacturer, and next time they stop making that part LIKE they do say for old movies and such then YOUR SCREWED and this isn't about a 10$ dvdr its about a thing you pay HUGE money for.
AND tell the guys working in shops that they cant fix/repair anyhting unless they get written approval and pay the manufacturer for doing work on your car and watch the repair costs fly through the roof, can you say 300$ a hour for work.

and dont think about repair yourself we'll make GET YOU TOO
those parts are gonna now cost ten times as much as they should so we can stop you
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 1:48pm

Re: Need to understand copyright, and patents
Plus, it's the law, if you dont like the present laws you live by, then go somewhere else, just because you like certain laws and rules, does not mean you are allowed to break those laws.

Yeah! Rosa Parks should have just sat at the back of that bus. Jeez, some people can just get so, what's the word I am looking for, yeah, uppity.

Respect the law people!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NAMELESS.ONE, 1 Apr 2010 @ 1:49pm

and darryl ( DID YOU EVEN READ THE SUBJECT)
like i know its a friday on some planet , maybe the one your on?

the fat is they are trying to apply this copyright madness to homes and next will be your cars and as others say its not a far stretch.

once everyone has done somehting they get residuals and then we all can just hand money around all day like 1930's Germany did by the wheel barrel

WAIT for the inflation to start hypering up and this stupidity really bigger the usa which hey GO DO IT QUICKLY
and so the rest fo the world can see for real how bad it all is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
KaiserSote, 1 Apr 2010 @ 1:49pm

Re: Need to understand copyright, and patents
Nice to have you darryl. The coloring books are in the corner.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NAMELESS.ONE, 1 Apr 2010 @ 1:51pm

OH another issue
if you dont own the home or have rights in the home can we now put cameras everywhere in your homes

and no more need a search warrants as YOU aren't the owner.
under landlord tenant act in province in canada where i live police have the right to enter or search any common areas already so once you dont own anything you have no right to refuse search and seizure.

enjoy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 1:52pm

Re: Much is copyrighted in a car
Trolling down the river, trolling, trolling, trolling down the river . . . .
[ link to this | view in thread ]
McShazo (profile), 1 Apr 2010 @ 1:52pm

To Darryl
Did you bother to read the article? It isn't about the copyright of music, art, etc. It's about the right to resell. If I purchase a car, I have every right to turn around and sell it to someone else. The same goes for a house. Once I purchase the car, I OWN that car. Ford or Toyota can't come back and say, "Hey, we want our car back," and take it. They can't stop you from modding the car, replacing the engine, replacing the transmission, and then reselling it. Maybe you should get a clue into reading comprehension.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Memyself, 1 Apr 2010 @ 1:59pm

The reason this sort of structure works with art, is that it allows expensive works of art to reproduced and re-sold for a lower price. Contrary to the typical oversimplifications of Mike Masnick, this is a system that works very well. If this was applied in full to developers and home sales, in that houses would be sold for less with an expected return down the line, then it would be a good thing for sellers and a good thing for buyers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NAMELESS.ONE, 1 Apr 2010 @ 2:11pm

@65
NO it doesn't.
IT's a system tha sbreaking down as hte technology to do all this oursleves is made available , in fact i could do a pretty tight sci fi movie using 3d modeling programs and such

thats the only cost plus my time.
add a few buds for some beers and you got a decent movie. END of story. THIS is what the big labels are really trying to stop.

AND HOW is adding any cost to the home making hte price lower?

YOUR THE IDIOT OF THE DAY for nomination on the category most likely to spend to much. IF everything in your nation rises one percent then that means inflation rises one percent if it gets to high.....people cant afford at the bottom end of life to buy things and the economy crashes

google hyper inflation
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NAMELESS.ONE, 1 Apr 2010 @ 2:14pm

also @ 65
I will also argue that the RTI of art as is is WAY to HIGH and that its literally sucking the life out of the economy as is.

UNLESS relief comes and soon the US economy will be toast forever. Its on its way and your starting to see small and medium sized businesses in canada migrate to NON US partners and clients.

THIS is a sign they too see your end.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sneeje (profile), 1 Apr 2010 @ 2:32pm

Re: Much is copyrighted in a car
Sigh. I love it when the clueless tell everyone else how stupid they are...

Yes, the *designs* for the car *may* be copyrighted and many of the components are covered under *patents*, but the whole car is not covered under copyright. If someone copied the entire car and sold it under a different name, the lawsuits would focus on willful patent infringement, not copyright or trademark.

And the name of the product is not copyrighted, it is covered under *trademark*, yet another different concept.

All of this is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, however. No one is saying that the costs of physical items don't include the costs of elements of that item that are covered by copyright, patents, or trademarks. What they ARE saying is that those rights don't extend beyond the FIRST SALE.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 2:43pm

Re:
No one is automatically owed payment. You may try to get paid but if no one is buying what you're selling . . . .
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Memyself, 1 Apr 2010 @ 3:12pm

Re: Re:
I didn't say anyone was owed a payment. What I said was that distributing the cost of a high priced item amongst multiple people brings the individual cost down. That's why a write can work on a novel for a year and you only have to pay ten bucks for his years worth of work.

In short: Your response has nothing to do with my initial statement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Meyself, 1 Apr 2010 @ 3:18pm

Re: @65
@Nameless One

Do you understand what the word "IF" means? Evidently not. I was quite clear in my initial post. IF the system under discussion (artist receiving money after initial sale) is applied to home sales, and the houses WERE sold for LESS because of this, then that would be an advantage.

This is pretty basic. Either you are capable of comprehending this simple equation, or you are not. At best, I can only assume English is a second language for you. If you're having that much trouble parsing something so basic, maybe you should stick to whatever native tongue you speak.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Memyself, 1 Apr 2010 @ 3:20pm

Re: @65
@Nameless One

If it's so simple to make a "pretty tight sci fi movie" for so little, then DO IT. Until you actually make this happen, your words are meaningless and your argument is groundless.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 4:05pm

Re: Re: Re:
If this was applied in full to developers and home sales, in that houses would be sold for less with an expected return down the line, then it would be a good thing for sellers and a good thing for buyers.

This is what I was replying to. Intellectual property is nothing like real property. You cannot make a 1:1 comparison.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 4:07pm

Re: Re: @65
If wishes were money we'd all be wealthy. If Star Trek replicators we're real than we'd all be wealthy. If a thing worked like an entirely different thing than . . . .
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 4:08pm

Re: Re: @65
As is yours.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Memyself, 1 Apr 2010 @ 4:15pm

Re: Re: Re: @65
@Anonymous Coward

Nope. My argument is based on the existing buisness model. Reselling art to multiple people at a low price to cover the overall cost is a system that has been put to test for decades.

Fact is, if you had a genuine counter argument you would make it. But you don't.. Because one does not exist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Memyself, 1 Apr 2010 @ 4:21pm

Re: Re: Re: @65
The article we're discussing is based on a theoretical buisness model based on an existing buisness model. Continuing the discussion in theoretical terms is entirely appropriate.

But since you seem to have difficulty with the tiny leap of logic required her, I'll spell it out. Article title: "Developers trying to treat houses like copyright"

You with me so far? I know it's complicated. Try to follow along.

See, copyright allows for artistic endeavors to sell at well below their value in resource cost. This means that you can buy a book for ten dollars rather than twenty thousand.

This entire topic is "If a thing worked like an entirely different thing than..." That's what this is about. See if your little yellow bus can keep up with the rest of the class.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Memyself, 1 Apr 2010 @ 4:26pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not the one who made the direct comparison. The comparison is the very heart of this hypothetical scenario. As for whether the two forms of property have any legal similarities...

1: They are not entirely dissimilar. No matter what people on the internet like to claim.

2: Laws are intangible and entirely mutable. As a society, we are perfectly capable to switch from treating item "A" as item "A" to treating item "A" as item "B".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 5:00pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
So when does the real property enter the public domain? Seriously, when does it enter the public domain? If real property can be treated like unreal property then . . . .
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 5:04pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Real propery is nothing like unreal property. One cannot be reproduced infinitely, while the other can.

Your arguments make no sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 5:04pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
How is real property like unreal property?

I'm waiting . . . .
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Memyself, 1 Apr 2010 @ 5:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You seem to have some difficulties here. We're not talking about the actual property in question, regardless of tangibility. We're talking about laws. And from a legal perspective the two are not entirely dissimilar. That's fact. And it doesn't matter how much you ignore or deny, it will remain fact.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Memyself, 1 Apr 2010 @ 5:15pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
As I already stated, the laws that govern each are not entirely dissimilar.

And where the two are dissimilar, from a legal perspective, is something that can be changed. Whether it should or not, and how it would be approached is subject to debate. In this instance, we have developers purportedly wanting to see house sales treated like works that are under copyright law. In the context laid out by the title of the post, I'm postulating how this could transpire in a manner beneficial to the customer.

So wait all you like. I'm just repeating myself at this point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Memyself, 1 Apr 2010 @ 5:17pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
Are you serious? Read up on Eminent domain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 5:38pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lawyers are so much more important than artists, so I guess you're right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 5:39pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
Oh, I get it, this is an April Fool's Day prank. Haha. You got me good.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 5:40pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
Terrible argument is terrible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Frank, 1 Apr 2010 @ 5:58pm

Re: At the end of the line
I wonder how that would work with foreclosures as well?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Memyself, 1 Apr 2010 @ 6:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
In other words, you don't have an actual counter argument.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Memyself, 1 Apr 2010 @ 6:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
In other words, you don't have an actual counter argument.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sneeje (profile), 1 Apr 2010 @ 6:16pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
Eminent domain has nothing to do with "entering the public domain", it is a transfer of land rights from an individual (or business) to the government, not to the public.

Therefore, fail.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Memyself, 1 Apr 2010 @ 6:20pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lawyers are certainly more important than artists in regards to house sales. Congratulations on figuring out the obvious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Memyself, 1 Apr 2010 @ 6:23pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
You're being foolish. For one, the poster I was responding to was asking me to prove a point I did not advance. I offered up something that is fundamentally similar. In that the government can declare private property to become public if it benefits the perceived greater good of the public.

The failure is clearly yours. On multiple levels.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 7:09pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
To what, utter nonsense?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 7:17pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
If real property was treated like intellectual property then you don't actually own the property, you simply purchase a license to rent it for a limited time.

There's a reason IP refered to as a government-enforced monopoly.

Who would want to own actual physical objects anyway? That's so pre-21st century.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 7:19pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Artists are to intellectual property as homebuilders are to actual property.

So lawyers are more important than homebuilders? Good to know. That wouldn't cause any stagnation in homebuilding at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 9:55pm

Re: This is bone-headed
We can discuss this when they can make copies of buildings...

Umm, "they can make copies of buildings" now. I guess you've never seen tract houses.

(along with the location that gives the house its relative value).

Oh, I see. As long as copies don't occupy the same physical space at the same time then they don't infringe. Except, that's not how copyright law works ... anywhere.

Talk about bone-headed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 9:58pm

Re: Re: What about the Architect
"lol, only as long as they take on liability and maintenance on said items as well."

That's not how copyright works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 10:02pm

Re:
I live in Texas and I think this is GREAT idea! It is great because if the developer wants 1% of the future resale value provided they also pay a 1% share of the
I hope you're not trying to say that would have some sort of basis in Texas state law, because it wouldn't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 10:04pm

Re: Need to understand copyright, and patents
Where did this idiot come from?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 11:31pm

Re: Ghostbusters teaches life lessons again
You say...YES!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Memyself, 2 Apr 2010 @ 12:07am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I like how you tell yourself something and then say "good to know" as if I was the one who informed you of that, despite the fact that I said nothing of the sort.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Memyself, 2 Apr 2010 @ 12:07am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
Again, you have no actual argument. If you had one you would present it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Memyself, 2 Apr 2010 @ 12:11am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
So if we apply one aspect of behavior to a specific scenario, all aspects must apply? That's about as slippery slope as you can get.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 12:25am

"My apologies for thinking that such a scenario was an "obviously ridiculous" one."

What you need to apologize for is giving these people bad ideas. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 1:09am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
It's like looking in a mirror!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 1:10am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because you actually haven't said anything at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 1:10am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
You're finally starting to get it!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 1:12am

Re:
I think treating real property like unreal property is a great idea. Maybe we would have a shot at actual intellectual monopoly reform but I seriously doubt it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Darryl, 2 Apr 2010 @ 3:03am

RE: someone
"in fact you have parts makers doing commercial selling of parts fo rcars you drive now that are not owned by the manufacturer.

explain that one. "

it's called manufacturing under license, like if you are an author or musision, you may license you're copyright or patents to third parties. Or book publishers, or music companies.

EMI, for example do not create the copyrighted material they sell, muso's do, the muso forms a business deal with the music company and that company deals with manufacture, distribution, advertising and so on.

Again, it's not that hard, all you have to do is think about it. It's also the existing LAW, so like it or not that is how the system works, if you dont want to work withing the existing system. DONT.

But dont cry about it, just makes you look petty, wanting to change the rules to allow you to do what you like.

Sure, it would be great to have the law changed to allow me to just go into any shop and take what I like. But until the laws are changed, I have to live with the existing laws, and so do you.

Dont like the law, become a politician and try to have it changed, otherwise expecting a change in the rules to help you out is a mugs game. As it's just not going to work, and certainly has not worked up until this time.

If you do something over and over and over again, and you never progress then after 20 years you might want to consider you're tactics somewhat flawed.

(not where are those colouring books?)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Darryl, 2 Apr 2010 @ 3:18am

What is it about copyright you dont like
The GPL is clued together, and exists purely due to copyright, the GPL is enforced and supported ONLY by copyright law.

Even the term "Linux" is copyrighted by Linus!.

SO is copyright bad when you cant milk it for you're own benifit and good if you can get something you want for free.

After all, it's only trust that the FSF will 'do the right thing' in the future with GNU/Linux as they require developers to sign over COPYRIGHT.

And again, it's the law, used very effectively by FOSS as a sword and crutch for GNU/Linux.

So why cry about other group applying the same laws and concepts as FOSS does with copyright, and working within the existing laws.

It's this clear disparity that makes FOSS look so bad, the two faced attitude that look to 'normal people' as "what's mine is mine, and whats yours is mine too".

And there is no difference between "real property" and interlectual property, or 'real' and 'software'.

Software is real, it's not 'just math' (and the law agees it's not math).

So again, it's hard for someone unbiased to see what you're motives are in fighting copyright (which you rely on), and patents, (which are both part of the LAWS of the land).

Really the best thing FOSS could do is forget about this petty bickering and start to try to look a little more professional, and stop painting the face of FOSS as a spoilt brat that wants to get his own way regardless of the law, and rules of the game.

Trying to take 'owership' of FOSS that is supposed to be "OPEN" and "FREE". means to keep it open and free it's open and free for ALL. not just those you like or agree with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
KaiserSote, 2 Apr 2010 @ 8:05am

Darryl's mindless rants
Mike you really should filter aa.org domains from your posts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Known coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 8:15am

Licensing simply needs to go away
I may be oversimplifying a bit but; I think we need to go to a system where we either rent or own. No other options. If it is rented it has to go back to the owner in a set time. Rented Software should have a self destruct timer in it, If it is owned, the purchaser owns it and can do whatever the hell he wants with it. (Aside from making multiple copies and reselling the product), making multiple copies . for your own storage, would be OK).

And as this would apply to “unreal” property, it would apply to real property as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 9:20am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you had an actual rebuttal, you would have advanced it. You don't. So talking to you is clearly a wast of time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Memyself, 2 Apr 2010 @ 9:21am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
Again, you have no actual argument. If you had one you would present it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 9:21am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
That you're simply trolling? You must be, as no one could be so obtuse on accident.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 9:38am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
Takes one to know one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Memyself, 2 Apr 2010 @ 10:17am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
At least you admit it. Thanks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 10:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
So you were being obtuse on purpose? Thanks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sneeje (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 10:45am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
Okay, I concede. I can't debate with someone who cannot understand basic concepts like how things that enter the public domain have their rights transfer to *everyone* and things that have their rights transferred to the government for public use (but for which the government can restrict its usage) are not *fundamentally* similar. Until you can explain what fundamental elements are the same everyone but you will continue to be confused. Or, you can just live in your fantasy world where you are a genius and everyone else is a moron.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 10:56am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
Which is why I was trolling Memyself, and trolling hard. Trolling trolls is fun!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Memyself, 3 Apr 2010 @ 12:46am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
"Debate"? You tried to "debate"? You mean when you enter into a conversation between two people with the word "fail", you're trying to "debate"?

You're the one acting like a condescending prick. You can pretend otherwise, you can act as if you are trying to "debate". But you're not.

Let's see if I can make this simple for you:

Fundamentally = Basically. In each instance, the government can decide that the nature of private property (physical or intellectual) will change, for the cause of the public good. That is the basis of BOTH scenarios. Are the two identical? Nope. never said that. But the two are fundamentally the same. That is fact, according to how the English language works and how the law works.

Now, I get that you are unable to grasp this. So you turn to snotty condescension. You embarrassment over entering a conversation on topics you are unable to grasp is duly noted. But sadly for you, I don't need to retreat into a "fantasy world" to know you're a moron. You're responses to me here make you ability (or lack thereof) to comprehend plain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Memyself, 3 Apr 2010 @ 1:06am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
And just to make things simpler for you, as you have clearly been suffering from great difficulty, lets look at this in what we call context:

I entered into a hypothetical discussion advanced by the article in which physical property may be treated in a similar fashion to intellectual property. I responded with a hypothetical outcome predicated with a discernible "IF". Then Trolly McTrollerson comes along and demands to know that if the two forms of property are identical (an argument I did not advance) then when does physical property enter into the public domain. I then instructed him to read up on eminent domain. Note that I did not make the claim that eminent domain was identical to public domain. The guy was obviously trolling, so I pointed him in a direction that would answer what was really at the heart of his question.

Now, you can either grasp how the continued ownership of both intellectual property and physical property are both subject to government discretion or you cannot. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, judging by the general tone of some of your other obviously self serving arrogant posts, you obviously like to proclaim your purported intelligence while pointing to the perceived failures of others. This is very Fox News of you. A big congrats on adopting that respectable technique to making yourself feel like a Smart Guy.

That's me giving you the benefit of the doubt. You looked at the most basic aspect of my post and jumped in, eager for a chance to show how smart you are.

The other option is that you're simply to stupid to understand a very basic concept. So... you're either an asshat or a fool. Which is it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Memyself, 3 Apr 2010 @ 1:09am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
tl;dr version:

1: The continued private ownership of both intellectual property and physical property are both subject to government discretion. That is a fundamental element the two forms of property clearly share.

2: You're an asshat, obviously.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sneeje (profile), 3 Apr 2010 @ 7:50am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
Wow, hit a nerve. Given the tone and words used throughout your posts, I suspect you might want to look in the mirror before calling anyone else childish names. I jumped in because of your inability to discuss with anything other than a condescending tone and responded in kind.

And, nevertheless, we will still have to disagree--your explanation is still not sufficient for me to agree that those elements are fundamentally, basically, or otherwise similar. While I can agree they are both subject to government discretion, that can be said of EVERYTHING including human rights (i.e., the government can chose to deprive you of them). So, if that's what you mean, I guess I have no response. However, if you mean that something (eminent domain) that is directly controlled through action by the government and something (entering the public domain) that exists because of no government action at all are the same, I can't agree. In fact, things have been entering the public domain since before government existed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Memyself, 3 Apr 2010 @ 9:41am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
So you're saying that your attitude towards me was simply a reflection of how I was treating other people. A response. Sure. Right. Except that my tone was set by people jumping on my initial post and calling me an idiot or simply attaching arguments to me I did not advance. Any attitude I have given has been purely in response to attitude I have recieved.

You on the other hand, sought me out. That's what makes you an asshole.

As for the actual topic, you're going all slippery slope on it. The government can make alterations to existing human rights laws, but not easily. Both eminent domain and public domain have specific clauses built into them that allow the government to change the legal status of personal property without drafting new laws or altering existing laws. In both instances, the alteration to the legal status of said property is based on a perceived benefit to the general public.

So, if you can find a third instance that involves human rights laws that involves an alteration of the legal status of personal property based on the good of the general public that does not involve alteration to existing laws or the creation of new laws, then yes, that will also be fundamentally similar to eminent domain and public domain. But the generalization you are making is blatantly false.

Just because you cannot understand the fundamental similarity between eminent domain and public domain does not mean the similarity does not exist. And just because some differences exist (passive versus active) does not mean the two do not share fundamental similarities. It is a given that the two forms of property (physical and intellectual) will not be identical. That's why I used the word "similar" and not the word "identical".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2010 @ 10:17am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
And this is why lawerly thinking shouldn't dictate the direction of the arts. IP or Imaginary Privilege is nothing like RP or Real Property. No ifs, ands or buts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Memyself, 3 Apr 2010 @ 7:24pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
And this is why people shouldn't chime in on argument they haven't bothered to read in full. One: This isn't a discussion about the arts. It's a discussion about real estate. Two: the hypothetical scenario put forward here would be of benefit to the consumer. Why you would be against that is beyond me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2010 @ 10:44pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
Because when you treat real property like unreal property the consumer always loses because IP is a government-enforced monopoly. How would consumers win with a government-enforced monopoly on real property? They wouldn't.

I am against monopolies on culture because I am against monopolies.

Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the goods or services that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Memyself, 4 Apr 2010 @ 9:22am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
How is it consumers always lose? A book might take a year to write, but the current buisness model on intellectual property allows a years worth of work to be available to each member of the public for about 10 dollars. In the last century, we've seen increased incentives for artists and an increased artistic output. Again, this is of benefit to consumers.

Additionally, you're treating this argument like a slippery slope. Just because we adapt one aspect of the approach to intellectual property for use with real estate doesn't mean every aspect must transfer over. I outlined the potential benefits more than once already.

While you're throwing around terms like: "Government enforced monopoly", you might want to consider that laws that protect the rights of artists are not automatically bad, despite what popular internet arguments you might have read. Besides, if I spend a year writing a book, why shouldn't I have rights in regards to my work? Why should an individual who purchases the book for under ten dollars have a say in the distribution of my efforts?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Apr 2010 @ 10:52am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
Why are you arguing with an admitted troll? That's just weird.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Memyself, 4 Apr 2010 @ 4:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
I could be mistaken, but isn't "Anonymous Coward" the default handle if you don't enter a name?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Apr 2010 @ 10:10pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
Every last "Anonymous Coward" is a troll.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sneeje (profile), 5 Apr 2010 @ 7:10am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
And just because you believe there's a similarity doesn't mean it exists either, so where does that leave us?

Oh, and since we've completely devolved into childish bickering--No, *you're* the asshole.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Memyself, 5 Apr 2010 @ 1:10pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
We didn't "devolve" into childish bickering. You launched a childish assault. I responded in kind. There's a difference.

Let's see if I can make this clear for you: You claim you jumped into this conversation specifically because of my "inability to discuss with anything other than a condescending tone" and that you intentionally "responded in kind"? Problem is, my tone was set by those attacking me, or those blatantly misrepresenting my actual arguments. So you basically jumped in to attack me for doing exactly what you then proceeded to do. The difference is, I was responding in kind to attitude directly addressed to me. You just took it upon yourself to interject with an attitude of self-confessed condescension.

Well done sir.

To the topic: The similarity is clear. Both are forms of personal property that can have their status changed specifically for the perceived benefit of the general public. Claiming that those similarities do not exist is like arguing that water is not wet.

To make it doubly clear - Tell me what I am describing with the next sentence:

*Blank* is a form of personal property that can have it's status changed specifically for the perceived benefit of the general public.

Does this apply to:

A: Real estate?

B: Art?

C: All of the above?

The two are fundamentally similar whether you want to admit it or not. And while you are certainly entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own set of facts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Memyself, 5 Apr 2010 @ 1:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
I try to give the benefit of the doubt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hmm (profile), 5 Aug 2011 @ 1:19pm

how about
What I want is a resale cut of every dollar bill I use.

Everytime I give the girl behind the counter $500 for a new laptop and the store then uses that $500 i want 10% of the resale.....

Then when someone down the line reuses the money i want another 10% and another and another....holy shit! I'm either gonna be rich or utterly destroy the financial system as we know it! :)

(win win)
[ link to this | view in thread ]