Would Copyright Work Better If It Was Treated More Like Property?
from the um,-no dept
Lawyer Terry Hart, who we linked to last month for his discussion about whether or not it was okay to call infringement theft has now written another piece arguing that those of us who point out that copyright is not property may also be making a mistake. Specifically, he points to a recent paper by Christopher Newman, which suggests that the problem might be that we don't treat copyright enough like property, and that if we treated it even more like property, many of the problems with copyright law, specifically in the area of derivative works, would be more efficiently handled. In many ways, Newman's paper is quite similar to the argument of Bessen and Meurer in the patent realm. Their research details how much the patent system is hindering innovation, and they chalk up the problem to the fact that patents are not enough like property, in that the boundaries are not clearly defined. Newman appears to take a similar position, with a few more specifics having to do with copyright.At a first glance, there is definitely something compelling about this argument (in both the patent and copyright realms). The lack of clear boundaries in either is, certainly, part of the problem because it allows the copyright and patent holders to try to expand their ability to exclude well beyond what many people feel is reasonable or economically justifiable. So, the argument goes, if the boundaries could be more properly calibrated, and clearly stated, it would do away with the worst abuses of each system.
In the end, though, I find neither argument convincing. Both are predicated on the idea that property rights, when properly defined with clear boundaries, lead to the more efficient allocation of resources. This is, of course, the fundamental rationale behind economics and property rights. The problem? They leave out an important condition: property rights are about the efficient allocation of resources in the presence of scarcity. The real reason for property rights was to handle the allocation of scarce resources. And, in fact, property rights do a pretty efficient job of that. The problem is that when the resource isn't scarce, allocation is not the problem any more. Putting property rights on non-scarce items doesn't make it more efficient, it makes it less efficient. It's telling, then, that Newman's paper makes no mention of either abundance or scarcity.
That's not to say the analysis provided in both Newman's paper or Bessen and Meurer's book isn't interesting and worth reading, but the fundamental error of not recognizing the different fundamental issues when dealing with scarce goods and abundant goods means that the solutions presented in each seem to be answering the wrong question, set up by a faulty assumption concerning the nature of property rights.
The reason that we point out that copyright and patents should not be considered property is not because we believe, as Hart implies, that thinking that way only papers over the problems of copyright, but that, fundamentally, copyright and property rights serve exceptionally different purposes. Could clearer boundaries improve things at the margin? Perhaps, though I doubt how effective it can really be. But, focusing on property rights as a "solution" is tackling the wrong problem. We don't need more efficient allocation of creativity -- it can already be allocated perfectly efficiently, since you can never run out of a particular (digital) work. So aiming for a better property rights regime, by definition, can only serve to limit that efficient allocation and make it less efficient.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Oh please...
Heck, when shit really went off the rails it was because you didn't have to make even the minor transaction cost of REGISTERING YOUR PRECIOUS CRAP! If we just went back to that there'd be a hell of a lot less to bitch about.
Of course, that still ignores the free speech aspect of being able to repeat what you've been told, but it'd be a start in the right direction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh please...
That is a seriously missed opportunity for the gubmint to generate revenue: required registration and fees for every copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh please...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh please...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh please...
So, if you really think your IP is worth $500m then you pay an annual tax proportional to $500m every year.
Stop paying the tax and the IP returns to the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh please...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh please...
A better system would have a tax proportional not to the declared value of the IP (which would also be impossible because of tricks like RIAA accounting), but to the time since the IP was published, payable yearly or every term of some fixed duration (e.g., 5 years) when the copyright requires renewal.
This would force a lot of orphan works and dead IP into the public domain, because eternal IP hoarding would become a lot costlier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh please...
I am a big believer in free speech and sex.
Actually, we all learned in sixties and seventies that sex was not free and we spent the rest of our lives dealing with that.
The same is true of speech. It is not free, for we must constantly fight to keep our rights.
But free speech has limits. In this case if someone has an invention you exercise your free speech right to encourage infringement then you could be used for inducing said infringement.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
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 chronology ]
Besides it creates an adversarial environment where cooperation is lost along with the utility of "the product".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not only wrong, it's dangerous.
Sheldon Richman wrote a very compelling article about why this is. I strongly urge everybody to read it, as it succinctly illustrates the point. It's telling that a year after he wrote it, the article comments contain no further refutation from those who disagree with him than "nuh-uh!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The real reason for property rights"
It's only in modern times that "allocation" has been more fair, and in the New World, the only reason that ordinary people ended up with lands was that no else had yet grabbed it (purposely ignoring natives, who had no actual claim to the land nor gov't to defend it, just happened to be on it; they were doomed upon meeting more advanced peoples).
Anyway, "property rights" are a weak basis for copyright. Like all analogies, its basic differences just make for irrelevant quibbles, as here. -- Copyright isn't property, but does need to be clearly defined, to *stop* increasing its coverage, to be greatly rolled back from current, to an actually *limited* time period, and to be a privilege available only to "natural" persons (stupid qualifier that we're now forced to use).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Right. And I've always said that the creation is a scarcity (one worth selling). Not sure your point. I haven't missed the point. You seem to have missed mine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Right, and artificially creating a scarcity of *works* is counter-productive. If your *grandsons* can make money off of a popular work, it's hardly an incentive to produce new ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do I freak out if someone photocopies a published work of mine to hand out without permission? No. I'm thrilled they think the ideas in the article are worth sharing. One of my instructors had copied something I'd published and gave it out in class. Later, she connected the dots and apologized profusely. I told her it was fine, I was flattered she thought so highly of my work that she felt it needed to be shared.
I got paid for writing the piece by the magazine it appeared in. I was allowed to keep the copyright as well. But we worked out a blanket deal. I get paid per word when writing it instead of by issue of magazine sold. Both the publisher and I won with that agreement.
Being published, I don't see why people demand to be paid each time their words are reprinted, repackaged and sold to new readers. My words and ideas may belong to me. But the reason I put them on paper (or more aptly, on a disk) was because I felt they needed to be shared.
(I write very specialized articles about dog training, learning and behavior theories.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corporate Welfare
Then, if somebody has the temerity to infringe the precious copyright, the hounds of hell are let loose. At vast expense to the US taxpayer, enormous police investigations happen. Huge and expensive court cases are fought, lasting years. Monstrous fines are levied, then payment gets fought over for more years.
This is an insane disparity. If copyright is so mightily valuable, then the government should be charging a handsome fee to get it started and renewed. There should be stiff bureaucratic requirements to be fulfilled, otherwise no copyright. The government and the copyright owners are in a very unfair partnership, where the government pays all the costs and the owners get all the benefits. The present copyright system is a clear case of corporate welfare. What were the politicians thinking?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are still confused
Sure, you might be abble to reproduce a work infinitly, but the time and abilities of the creator are not infinite, they are relatively scarce.
The cost involved in producing a creative work is not in the marginal cost of reproduction, it's in the fixed cost of creation.
Any model that bases its assumptions on the marginal cost of reproduction - like iStock photo for example - is doomed to be unsustainable.
Any economy that mistaks the two, is simiilarly doomed to lag behind economies that understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You are still confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You are still confused
Copyright doesn't exist for creative effort, only for products.
Title 17 § 102
"Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device."
The effort, which involves creativity (s, is in fact scarce. The product of that creativity is not scarce if able to be copied. Most products of creativity can be copied, or reasonably reproduced (like taking a picture of a painting if you can't otherwise paint a duplicate).
Some artists are in fact paid for the creative effort. Concert musicians, wedding singers, performance artists, strippers, when playing for limited attendance events where no recording is taking place, get paid for their effort.
Other types of artists, especially ones involved in the selling of tangible products rather than in services such as live performances, make money for the products they create.
You don't pay a writer for a book they wrote but never published. You pay them for the book so that you can read it. The book itself is the product for which the writer earned his money.
Yes, the product couldn't have existed without the creative effort and the creative effort can exist without the product, but only the product earns the money unless you negotiate to sell the performance. If you can find someone to pay you to write, regardless of what final product you create, then you have a very niche job in performance art and I'd like to know if I can get in on the act.
The fixed cost of creation must be taken into account and negotiated for by the artist if he's working with a production company. If he's selling his own work, he has to work out his own business model. Once the work is fixed in a tangible medium that can be infinitely copied, however, it is irrelevant to the pricing of the product. This is proven by the movie industry again and again.
Blair Witch Project cost $600 thousand to make but grossed $140 million in the US. On the other hand, Cutthroat Island cost $115 million and made only $10 million in the US.
I can buy Blair Witch Project on DVD for $6 on Amazon and Cutthroat Island on DVD for $8. Where does how much it cost to make either film deeply affect the pricing of the product after it's fixed in a tangible medium? Where does how much it cost to make either film deeply affect the profitability of the product?
Movie actors negotiate for a salary regardless of how well the movie does (usually), but this is the production studio paying them, not the consumer of the final product. Actors don't sell movies. They get paid for their performances by companies who record and edit and package and sell those performances along with the performances of other creative (and uncreative) people in a fixed medium. It is irrelevant to the consumer how much the studio decided to spent on creative effort.
This is not to say that the creative efforts of artists are worthless. It just means that they have to recognize that spending 10 years or 2 months writing a book isn't going to greatly effect the sales price of a hardcover edition. Production cost is a consideration only for the producer. It has nothing to do with copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You are still confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
Authors are granted exclusive rights to the copying of the products of their creativity. They are not given any rights in regards to their creativity itself. Creativity is not tangible.
The (misnomer) "intellectual property" refers to the products of creativity (among other things, but in this specific case we're referring to copyright). The creativity itself is not the intellectual property.
Copyright law doesn't grant you any rights to the mental process of thinking up the words you write. You only get rights to the product of that mental process once it is fixed in a tangible medium.
It's absurd enough to treat the products of creativity like real property. It's even more absurd to treat the creativity itself as real property. In fact, it's impossible to do so even if you wanted to.
Which is why the scarcity of creativity is irrelevant to the discussion.
Artist's who are selling the performance of their creativity do not retain copyrights over their performances (unless they are being recorded, in which case the recording would constitute a fixed work in a tangible medium). There's nothing tangible to treat like real property. It might as well be a pretty sunset that no one records.
So why do you think that the scarcity of creativity has relevance to the concept of treating copyrighted material like real property?
As I said before, I'd love to get paid a salary (with decent medical, dental, and retirement benefits while we're daydreaming) just to "be creative" without having to fix anything in a tangible medium. Are you hiring?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
You give the author exclusive rights in the tangible product of his creativity to incentivize his creativity in the first place
The scarcity of the creativity is absolutely relevant to the equation. If it wasn't a scarcity, you wouldn't give the author exclusive rights as an incentive to create.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
But that's beside the point.
While creativity is in fact a sine qua non for creative works (allowing for the broadest definition of the term "creativity"), the incentive is for the creation of the copyrighted material, not for the creativity itself. You don't have to incentivize artists to be creative. They are creative by nature. They aren't artists if they aren't creative, by definition. The exclusive right is to incentivize them to use their creativity to create a fixed work in a tangible medium. You have the same exclusive rights to the copying of your fixed work regardless of how much it cost you to create it, how many hours (or years) it took you to create it, or how much "creativity" you put into it. Those are all concerns of the producer, not of the market, nor should they be concerns of the lawmaker.
To rephrase what I've already said, the incentive is to create something, not just to be creative. There's no incentive in copyright law to think up creative things you never express.
Another way to look at it is that copyright allows you to make money off of the commercially viable products of your creativity. The incentive is to be able to make money. You can't make money off of just "being creative." You make money off of creating (commercially viable) products and selling them.
To be more honest though, copyright creates an incentive for the entity that sells the product, which is not always the artist. Copyright mostly benefits the middlemen who purchase the copyrights to the products of creative people. If copyrights were truly about creating incentives for artists to create fixed works, copyright would expire upon the artist's death since the artist would no longer have an ability to be incentivized to create anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
That's just simply not true. You don't seem to understand how the incentives work.
The incentive is to get the creator to create the work in the first place. If the work gets created, then the incentive has already done it's job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
An author believing they need copyright is is just as much correlation as that in itself can be misinformation of the author in how he/she can and does make money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
Copyright works like this all the time, and it has done so for centuries.
And it's not that such an author needs copyright, it's that copyright is available to them if they want it. They have the choice. Do you want to take that choice away from them? I don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
Copyright as a system assumes they need it. Copyright applies from the moment of creation without any need to think or express any preference that can be considered choice on the artists part. Copyright was created because it was assumed it was a needed system to address economic pressures assumed to not work in favour of society.
So it's irrelevant as to how efficient a system is, whether there are alternatives and whether those alternatives are better, so long as someone *believes* they needed it, it worked? That sounds like a fantastic way to build a false economy with enforced inefficiency that's worse off for all. Copyright assumes that is needed to address an economic inefficiency, not because authors only create when given exclusive control over something out of belief they need it.
Yes, if the choice isn't even needed and has no benefits to society other than engaging in someones delusions. I can certainly allow them to believe they need copyright or some other means to enforce exclusive control, I can certainly allow them to try and create contractual agreements or build software that blocks unauthorised copying, but that doesn't automagically deserve the full backing of laws like copyright merely because they believe they need it.
Far better for everyone to educate them on how everyone can be better off - including the artists - without the need for such systems and without enforcing inefficiency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
It's so simple that it's silly you are arguing against it. Authors are incentivized by copyright all the time. There are millions of examples of copyright working all around you.
You really strike me as a silly person, Modplan. I don't see much point in debating with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
Except if alternative means can create a better situation for all including the artists themselves, in which case it would not be working and it would be misinformation to say that copyright is needed, to assert that authors that believe it is needed are right and that therefore copyright is doing its job to incentivise people.
To you, a system can be considered working merely because people believe it has worked and believed they needed it. This entire site is dedicated to showing alternative means that produce a better off situation for all without copyright and provide just as much if not more incentive to craete. Building systems based on effectively fantasies that create inefficiencies are not what I consider working systems, and that educating people on better, more efficient means of authors to earn money for their work is far more productive.
The definition of a working system is not based on whether people believe themselves to have needed it and in turn incentivised by that, but the reality of how it works, its efficiencies and inefficiencies, its social costs and how they measure up to the goal. Copyright is far from working in most of those regards.
http://www.eff.org/wp/unintended-consequences-under-dmca
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
To me, the system works because people are in fact incentivized to create new works by copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
It's also a strawman to claim I said something I did not. What I did say was that to assert that copyright works merely because an author believes they have benefited or will benefit from it is a pretty crappy measure of how well a system works, and that there are alternative means that do not require or rely far less on copyright whilst providing just as good if not better incentives to create and produces a socially better system. Seems better to me to educate people about these means and use this to inform law, rather than having copyright exist because an author believes they need it and count that as an example of a working system.
I see very few given incentive by copyright. I see large media companies complaining constantly that copyright doesn't go far enough, demanding 3rd parties like Google to filter content for them that they don't like and that said industry is doomed without action whilst simultaneously making billions every year, whilst small artists are finding more ways to make money with means that don't involve locking up the content with copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
That makes no sense. By that argument, the gov't handing out a sugar monopoly "works" because one company got rich off of it.
Have you no concept of how helping a small group can harm many more people?
Copyright only works if it works in the aggregate. If the net result makes people worse off, then we have a problem. You can't keep defending copyright as working based on a single example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
Prove that it doesn't work in the aggregate. I'll be waiting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
You must be new here. Try the search engine.
But, if you are unable to do so (and I get the feeling that you are), then I'll summarize: in the whole of human history, it's been shown over and over again that monopoly rights limit market size. If you are arguing against the basic physics of how markets operate, then it would behoove you to have some (any!) proof that a market can be made larger with such monopoly rights.
But, in absence of that, we have a variety of like/like situations to compare, and in every one of those, the markets without copyright protections tend to be larger, and allow producers to make more money. Just as one example, look at the difference in weather data in the US and the EU.
Either way, in every market comparison I've seen of like-like situations, the overall market size in the one without copyright has been larger than in the one with copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
I must warn you though. I think most economics is just voodoo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
Quite true. And this is why you're against retroactive extension of copyright, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
The argument for retroactive extension of copyright is to incentivize the creation of new works, not to incentivize works that were already created. Of course it doesn't incentivize works that were already created. That's so obvious, it's not really worth mentioning. That doesn't stop you from focusing on that silly argument though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
You admit that an extension of copyright over already existing works obviously not give incentive as works it would cover had already been created. So why have a retroactive extension in the first place? You just defied your own argument. If retroactive extensions are not needed as works that would be covered by them already exist anyway, then there's no reason to make the extension retroactive in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
The argument for retroactive extension of copyright is to incentivize the creation of new works, not to incentivize works that were already created.
Retroactive copyright extensions only cover works that were already created.
You have given no argument for why a retroactive copyright extension would incentivize the creation of new works.
And I have read the arguments in Eldred. As far as I can tell, the Supreme Court didn't rule that retroactive extensions actually incentivized new works - or even that they needed to. They essentially said, "Hey, it's up to Congress, we don't have the power to stop them."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
They were both absolutely right, and it's a crime that other Congressmen didn't listen to them. Indeed, they couldn't: almost half of the votes that approved the Act were delivered by proxy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
They were both absolutely right, and it's a crime that other Congressmen didn't listen to them. Indeed, they couldn't: almost half of the votes that approved the Act were delivered by proxy.
Good stuff. I'm reading it now.
Personally, my gut feeling is that the term of copyright is just too long. I don't know exactly how long the term should be though, and I'm suspicious of anyone who claims they do.
I especially liked Stevens' dissent in Eldred, but I pretty much like anything he wrote. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
1. Extending existing copyrights can incentivize new creations. Authors are incentivized knowing that down the road Congress is likely to extend their existing copyright. Congress has extended existing copyright four times since the first Act, and they are likely to do it again.
2. To harmonize U.S. copyright with E.U. copyright. As explained in Eldred: "[T]he EU directed its members to deny this longer term to the works of any non-EU country whose laws did not secure the same extended term. . . . By extending the baseline United States copyright term to life plus 70 years, Congress sought to ensure that American authors would receive the same copyright protection in Europe as their European counterparts."
3. To incentivize existing copyright holders to preserve their earlier works that were about to lose copyright protection
4. Because it would be unfair to give new copyright holders more protection than existing copyright holders.
There were other arguments in the briefs as well.
Nobody ever argued that existing copyright holders would be incentivized to create the works they already created, since that makes no sense.
Shallow thinkers like Modplan think that since existing copyright holders can't be incentivized to create the works they already created, then there can't be a single reason to extend existing copyrights. That's just silly. The fact that Congress has extended copyright means that they had a justification for doing so. Rather than do some reading to learn what those justifications were, silly people like Modplan just say that there's no reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
Neither do I.
What I can't stand is people who think they can break the laws because they don't agree with them.
Underground Railroad: LAWBREAKERS!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
I also don't like it when people think something is black and white when most of the time it's gray."
So those darn Jews who married Germans after the Nuremberg laws were unethical?
The black people who opposed apartheid in South Africa were unethical?
The American colonists who rebelled against English rule were unethical?
Rosa Parks should have been imprisoned for refusing to move to the back of the bus, right?
13 year old girls who illegally download Justin Bieber songs should go to juvenile detention, right?
Single mothers who illegally download mp3s should have to pay $1.92 million for copyright infringement and permanently have their ability to provide for their children hindered, right?
It doesn't seem like the issue of breaking laws that you don't agree with is so black and white after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
Yes, I read them. But amicus briefs mean nothing unless the Supreme Court actually takes those arguments into account when making their decisions. For the most part, they did not.
But for the sake of argument, I will.
Authors are incentivized knowing that down the road Congress is likely to extend their existing copyright.
So, authors would not write new works, unless they had the opportunity to gamble on the fact that copyrights would be extended? And if they weren't, that authors would stop producing out of protest? Yeah, right. Unless you have some data to back that up (and the amicus brief didn't, despite its claims), then I'm going to call bullshit on that.
Even if that were somehow true, "incentivizing new works" is not the ultimate goal. Public use of those works, is. So you would not only have to prove that more new works would be created, but also that more works would enter the public domain. Nobody has suggested that.
To harmonize U.S. copyright with E.U. copyright.
Two criticisms:
1. This never stopped Congress before. Just ask Shostakovich.
2. Recognizing this as valid, means that you place U.S. treaties with other countries above the law of the Constitution. There is no legal basis for this.
To incentivize existing copyright holders to preserve their earlier works that were about to lose copyright protection
There is no evidence that releasing works into the public domain will prevent their preservation. On the other hand, there are tons of cases where preservation is legally impossible due to copyright issues. That's because the preservation of copyrighted works depends on the efforts of one entity (the copyright holder), whereas preservation of the public domain will happen if only one social entity desires it (and more preservation will happen the more members desire it). In other words, this criticism is ass-backwards: copyright prevents preservation.
Because it would be unfair to give new copyright holders more protection than existing copyright holders.
Copyright holders who produce new works would have the same protection as new copyright holders. So it would actually incentivize the production of new works - thus be a far better law according to the Constitution. But even if not, whether it's unfair to copyright holders is completely immaterial.
Copyright is a contract between publishers and the public: copyright is granted in exchange for a larger public domain. The terms of that contract were voluntarily entered into when those works were published. If your company (the public) offers a better deal to people it "hires" later, why is that unfair? It's just a different contract.
Say you signed with a distributer for a 12% royalty rate. If that same distributer signs a contract for 15% with someone else, they're not breaking your contract.
Of course, even this sidesteps the real issue. Congress has allowed publishers to default on their contract every time copyright lengths have increased. Congress is supposed to be the public's representatives, but just like Colonel Tom Parker, Congress has exploited the public while lining its own pockets.
It's like facing a murder charge, and learning your lawyer has entered a guilty plea without even asking you. Then saying "it wasn't murder when the victim died, but it is now, so you have to serve a life sentence."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
I really doubt you read the amicus briefs because there are like four dozen of them. I only read a few of them.
That's besides the point though.
The Court DID take those arguments into account. It's not the Court's job say which arguments are good and which are bad. The Court simply looks to whether Congress had a rational basis for enacting the law as they did. And Congress did have such a rational basis.
You can disagree with every single reason Congress put forth, and that doesn't matter. I've never said I even with any of those reasons. Again, all that matters is that they had reasons to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
That has to be perhaps the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. So more people will create today because they think that at some point in the future, Congress might retroactively extend their copyright again?
Talk about taking "faith-based" copyright to a new level.
I can't believe that any thinking person would accept such drivel. We're talking about a statute designed specifically to take away free speech rights and folks like yourself accept a purely faith-based argument as to why that's okay. Disgusting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
And I disagree that CTEA is "designed specifically to take away free speech rights." Yeah, right. Save your rhetoric for someone else. I don't buy it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
You aren't allowed to copy.
You aren't allowed to bring forth your own ideas.
Face it, it takes away free speech for some made up number of profit. All in the name of being for artists?
Why not take some of that evidence (RIAA taking down Mulve, Limewire taken down by RIAA, BREIN trying to take down Pirate Bay) and wrap around the fact that, as Al Franken says, these are the new fights for equal rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
That is not true, just look at open source today people create for a whole lot of reasons and they keep doing so, even without a financial prospect. If you want to look at the past, surely you can find that every culture have produced a lot without any of those "incentives" you talk about. The internet for example was build completely without any rules or monopolies, everybody copied everyone and it grew to what it is today, now some people want to limit it, the U.S. grew its industrial park without limiting anything that is what made the manufacturing industry great it was not IP laws that produced those outcomes it was the freedom to tinker and produce that created the right environment to a explosion in creativity and the production of a vast market it is only after that some figures think they can come in and cash in on that and try very hard to make it happen and usually transforming the field into a desert with concepts like "copyrights".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
That is not true, just look at open source today people create for a whole lot of reasons and they keep doing so, even without a financial prospect. If you want to look at the past, surely you can find that every culture have produced a lot without any of those "incentives" you talk about. The internet for example was build completely without any rules or monopolies, everybody copied everyone and it grew to what it is today, now some people want to limit it, the U.S. grew its industrial park without limiting anything that is what made the manufacturing industry great it was not IP laws that produced those outcomes it was the freedom to tinker and produce that created the right environment to a explosion in creativity and the production of a vast market it is only after that some figures think they can come in and cash in on that and try very hard to make it happen and usually transforming the field into a desert with concepts like "copyrights".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
It was no accident that the original copyright law enacted in 1790 used "promote progess" in the context of encouraging learning. This meaning carries forward even to this day, nothwithstanding "economists" who would have you believe otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
As it stands, when cornered, you merely refer to me as being silly and talk about how I know nothing. If you cannot provide even a remote idea about how I am wrong, then either you either cannot or are simply not interested in honest debate in the first place and want to stir the hive so to speak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
This is not true.
Whether this is merely bad wording or misinterpretation on my part or not I have no idea, but to clarify, if an unpublished work is not copyrighted for whatever reason, then it must by definition be public domain. If an unpublished work is copyrighted (which by default it is) then it may eventually fall into the public domain, but this is not a guarantee when you consider semi-regular demand for extensions to copyright protection and Congress saying the limited times clause is not in itself a restriction on how long copyright can last.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
Not quite. Public domain refers to works which are published but not copyrighted. Until 1976, public domain was the default status of published works, unless you went through the legal process of copyrighting them.
For example: the Mark Twain papers, which he did not want published until 100 years after his death, were never public domain. But they do enter public domain once they are published. On the other hand, if the owner of those papers chose to publish them earlier (but after the copyright had expired), there would be nothing stopping him from doing so; and once he did, those papers would be public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You are still confused
It's the value determined on the market that defines the price.
You argue in circles; of course the copyright exists in the fixed book or film, and of course the writer isn't paid for just sitting there and thinking.. But if production of a book, movie or film costs anything more than the marginal cost of REproduction (which is often close to zero), you have a problem.
Thats exactly the purpose copyright serves - to try to balance private and social goods.
If you spend $600,000 making a film and you make a profit, how is that bad? If you spend that and can't get it back somehow, you'll think twice about trying it again.
It's pretty normal business practice.
If you spend millions developing a car, and it sells heaps and you make a profit, that's generally a good thing, why are easily reproducible items any different?
If you rent a car for a day for a fraction of the cost of buying it new, do you winge when the owner wants it back, that its unreasonable to restrict your use of it?
No one expects to own a car for the cost of renting it.
Your use defines the value proposition.
If you want to OWN a movie, then be prepared to pay what it cost to produce, if you want to watch it a few times, then pay for a fraction of the cost of production, its not that expensive.
People who want things for free are just freeloaders, nothing more.
Free stuff dosn't grow the economy or benefit anyone, all it does it create massive economic distortions.
Production costs form the very basis for the concept of copyright law - if you don't know that you don't know much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
Your original statement also seemed to confuse business models and economies.
"Any model that bases its assumptions on the marginal cost of reproduction - like iStock photo for example - is doomed to be unsustainable.
Any economy that mistaks the two, is simiilarly doomed to lag behind economies that understand."
The first sentence is about a business model. The producer of the infinitely reproducible good must determine the best way to deal with their costs and to make a profit.
The second sentence is about an economy. The reality of the (somewhat) free market economy that we have is that other market players will take advantage of any other player's inability to develop a business model that can adapt to the current market conditions. The entire concept of altering laws to provide a company with a failing business model with an unfair advantage over other companies that have adapted to the market conditions goes against the welfare of the economy. Suddenly innovation is no longer incentivized.
"If you spend millions developing a car, and it sells heaps and you make a profit, that's generally a good thing, why are easily reproducible items any different?"
Easily reproducible goods are inherently different because their low reproduction costs are factors the producers must take into account when determining their business model. The problem with copyright is that companies have taken up the business model of trying to push for and purchase legislation that protects an ailing, obsolete business model because they refuse to adapt. They refuse to acknowledge that the market has changed.
You can't tout the market and then suggest that the market doesn't work the way it's supposed to and requires legislation to fix a flaw created by technology. Technology is a market condition. Adapt or get out of the market, but don't screw up the market for other players who are willing to adapt.
"If you want to OWN a movie, then be prepared to pay what it cost to produce, if you want to watch it a few times, then pay for a fraction of the cost of production, its not that expensive."
A copyright holder cannot own a movie regardless of how much the production costs. It's a copyright, not an ownership. You can own legally-granted rights to the reproduction of a creative work, but you cannot possess creative works themselves the way you own physical property (unless you never utter them, but such works are irrelevant to copyright discussions). Ownership is an exclusivity of possession. A creative work cannot be taken back once it is uttered.
"People who want things for free are just freeloaders, nothing more."
Who said anything about free? I'm talking about using copyright law in order to subvert the market.
"Free stuff dosn't grow the economy or benefit anyone, all it does it create massive economic distortions."
While we're on the subject of free though, free can contribute to economic growth and it benefits a lot of people. Some people have even (god forbid) adapted to the market condition of having a supply of free stuff available and turned it into a viable business model (YouTube for example).
Even violations of copyright can benefit the economy. Let's say you can't afford the $600+ cost of the Adobe Creative Suite. Even if you want to buy it, you wouldn't because you have to pay your rent and buy food. Buying the software when you can't afford it would deprive your landlord of income (and get you evicted) and would deprive the local supermarket of income.
So you download a copy of the software in violation of Adobe's copyright. Adobe isn't losing a sale because you wouldn't have bought it anyway. Their costs aren't going up at all because it didn't cost them for you to download the copy.
You invest a lot of hours and learn how to use the software really well. You end up getting a well-paying job due to your experience with the software. You make more money, pay more taxes, and you spend more money. The company even buys a license for the software you use.
"Production costs form the very basis for the concept of copyright law - if you don't know that you don't know much."
The fact that production costs exist is taken into account in copyright law. However, the actual production cost itself is a business model matter. The movie producer who spends $100 million on production costs gets the same copyright protection as the movie producer who spends $500 thousand on production costs. The actual costs are irrelevant to copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
The only reason anything is of any value and you don't have to protect it by force at our own expence is because the force is delegated to the coercive power of Govt in exchange for our taxes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
The only reason anything is of any value and you don't have to protect it by force at our own expence is because the force is delegated to the coercive power of Govt in exchange for our taxes.
Ah, your first and second sentences disagree with each other. Property can be protected by force. We've added laws to make that easier, and less violent, but "intellectual property" cannot be protected by force. That's the point. You don't NEED laws to protect property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
If we don't need laws to protect property, why do we have them, whimsy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
Will copyright holders start a war?
They would be murdered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
Again, you seem to be confusing basic economics with business models.
The point of economics is that, if the market is competitive, then the price will get driven towards marginal cost. The way you beat that is you keep innovating, and you create an advantage, that advantage gives you the ability to charge over marginal cost. So the fact that not everything you see is priced at marginal cost just means that the market is working. In the case of text messages, the market is not competitive (you're stuck with paying messages from your carrier, and switching costs are high). With Coke, you're paying extra for the *perceived* value of Coca Cola over the competition.
It's the value determined on the market that defines the price.
That's actually not true. That's wrong economically. The price of something is determined by the intersection of supply and demand (which really is the same thing as saying price is marginal cost, by the way, just looking at the graph from a different angle). *VALUE* plays into the supply and the demand *curves* which can *influence* the price, but value does not determine the price.
As a practical matter: I can value the book in front of me at $50. That shows you my demand curve. If the price is less than $50, I will buy it. If it's more than $50 I will not. Now you might say, well, the seller will price it at $50. But that's not true, because in a wider market, others may value it at different amounts. Value is not an objective number, but a number indicated by the overall market -- which is the demand *curve* which is what ends up setting the price, when it intersects with the supply curve (the same equation on the supply side).
Thats exactly the purpose copyright serves - to try to balance private and social goods.
And if it did that, you'd have a point. The problem is that over and over again it has been shown that it does not balance those things at all.
If you spend $600,000 making a film and you make a profit, how is that bad? If you spend that and can't get it back somehow, you'll think twice about trying it again.
No one said it was bad. In fact, that's great. That's why we spend so much time highlighting how people can profit without copyright. Your mistake is thinking that without copyright you can't profit. That's wrong.
If you spend millions developing a car, and it sells heaps and you make a profit, that's generally a good thing, why are easily reproducible items any different?
They're not. That's why we're happy if people can make a movie and make a ton of money. But you don't need copyright to do so. You seem to be making that very wrong assumption.
No one expects to own a car for the cost of renting it.
Huh? Who said anything like that?
People who want things for free are just freeloaders, nothing more.
Yeah, you freeloader. Where can I send you the bill for reading this page? The information you're getting here, seeing as you seem ignorant of basic economics would cost you at least $10,000 in college classes. Where can I send the bill?
Free stuff dosn't grow the economy or benefit anyone, all it does it create massive economic distortions.
Heh. Actually, you should try reading some Ken Arror or Paul Romer economics. Free stuff absolutely grows the economy.
Production costs form the very basis for the concept of copyright law - if you don't know that you don't know much.
And if you believe that, you don't know economics. Try again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You are still confused
No. I'm not actually.
Sure, you might be abble to reproduce a work infinitly, but the time and abilities of the creator are not infinite, they are relatively scarce.
Indeed. A point I've made *repeatedly*.
The cost involved in producing a creative work is not in the marginal cost of reproduction, it's in the fixed cost of creation.
Again, a point I've made repeatedly.
Any model that bases its assumptions on the marginal cost of reproduction - like iStock photo for example - is doomed to be unsustainable.
You're confusing business models with economics. The *economics* say that, in a competitive market, price gets driven to marginal cost. So, understanding marginal cost is key. The *business model* side, says that you need to understand these pressures to find something to sell that *won't* get driven to marginal cost.
Any economy that mistaks the two, is simiilarly doomed to lag behind economies that understand.
Again, you seem to be confusing two things: economics, which are forces that you can't change, and business models, which you can.
My point has always been that you need to find a business model that doesn't fight economics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You are still confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You are still confused
So When you buy Louis Vuitton or Chanel, you're buying it at marginal cost? I don't think so.
As far as I'm aware, Coase disproved marginal cost theory over 60 yrs ago.
You say; "The *business model* side, says that you need to understand these pressures to find something to sell that *won't* get driven to marginal cost."
So, a photographer say, should simply not deal in photographs? Or a search engine should not deal in computer code?
After all, the marginal cost of reproduction is zero.
The implication of what your saying are huge, if you had your way there would be no economy.
Re Arrow and Romer - I assume you're talking about papers by them that show research that proves your point, would love to know which ones you're refering to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
His theories don't deal with marginal cost but shows how they get there.
Coase acknowledges that there are external and internal forces and those forces drive costs up and down(Transaction cost) he didn't try to disprove marginal cost at all but he gave people a way of thinking of how things get there.
Now with that poor understanding of basic economics you want to try and tell people how they should behave? You will drive them into the ground.
A photographer don't need to deal with photographs to get money he can sell his services can he not?
A search engine don't deal with code it deals in search.
Louis Vulton doesn't deal in goods it is about the brand name, copycats from Asia can be spotted for the higher quality products they put on the market did you know that?
The production cost is not zero the reproduction can be almost zero. When reproducing something is as easy as talking, the cost of enforcement goes into orbit making it not only inviable but undesireble in that scenario you either find something you can offer that can't be easily reproducible or you fail in the market.
Search engines have no protection from the law, none and still they keep popping up why?
Louis Vulton have no protection for products and they still make a killing, they can protect the brand which is what people buy, a photographer is selling his services not photographs he can still make a living if there are not many other photographer's on the field that can deliver good enough services which today nobody is willing to pay that much because anybody can shoot a photo and repair it in photoshop it is getting harder to make a living being a photographer but not because of use of his work but because of the many variables in the market that are pushing the cost to nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
The cost of enforcement does indeed go into orbit, just as it does if you wish to personally protect physical property by your own efforts.
That is why the government protects it for you, in exchange for taxes; it's seen as more efficient.
Hence people generally don't build castles any more.
Louis Vuitton has legal protection at every stage of the process, both intellectual; the designs, photographs, patterns, trademarks etc and physical; it's generally illegal to steal physical property. They are also protected in many jurisdictions by customs duties and restraints of trade etc etc etc...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But the IP industry saw an opportunity with newer technologies to squeeze blood from already drained turnips. Why should I pay more for a new copy when I already have a copy? I bought the music. That ownership comes with rights, whether the laws you've paid for respect that or not.
I wouldn't have bought the CD if the music weren't on it. The music is the inherent property that I paid for. The CD is just the medium. I didn't buy a blank CD for a reason.
The concept that copyright is like property has another side that copyright maximalists aren't considering (but also won't accept since it's only about what they want, not fairness). If all the media that I purchased belongs to someone else and I'm supposed to treat it like someone else's property, then I'm charging you rent for storing your music in my head. That movie you own that I can quote verbatim? Yeah, that's $100/month for space I could have filled with something else. All the shelf space that your CDs are filling up in my house? That's sending my kids to college.
Or it can be considered abandoned property. You didn't come to my house to pick it up, so I guess it's mine now and I'll do what I like with it.
If I destroy a CD that technically belongs to the recording company, am I liable for property damage? If I forget the tune or the lyrics to a song that was stuck in my head a year ago, am I liable for property damage?
To treat "Intellectual Property" like real property means that I can read you my poem and then cut your head off because it's the only way I can make sure you don't keep my property.
Absurd? Of course. Oh you meant my analogies? I was just talking about treating Intellectual Property like real property. Now that's absurd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Real property can also be stolen, so as soon as you create a flawless memory wiping device that can target specific memories, I'll hold creative people at gunpoint, record their works in a tangible medium, and then wipe their memory of the work and the whole gun-to-the-head episode.
But to be fair, I put the property in your head since I was the one who read it to you. So I should probably pay you for storing my stuff. But then, if I pay you to store it, you have an incentive to remember it. And if you tell it to someone else and subsequently forget it, then you're giving away my stuff without my permission. That's theft!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The rights to intellectual property don't concern possession ; they concern reproduction, distribution, public performance, etc.
The idea that one can "possess" intellectual property is neither here nor there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is why the term "intellectual property" has always been a misnomer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Within the substantive due process realm, there are intangibles which can't be possessed that are certainly treated as property interests: tenure, certain licenses, etc.
"The fact that X can't be possessed so it can't be treated as property" is an idea that hasn't had favor for hundreds of years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You left out the very important word "real." By "real property," I'm referring to tangible physical objects. Land is real. Your car is real. Real objects have material limitations and are not infinite goods. You can treat all of those examples you mentioned as property, just like a copyright. But you just can't treat them as real property. And that's where the significance of the distinction comes into play.
Tenure and licenses are rights and they're not treated like real property. You can't sell tenure like you can a car. There's no doctrine of first sale regarding tenure.
Certain licenses can be seen as infinite goods, such as software licenses. These are not treated like cars or coffee mugs or real estate either. And a judge recently ruled that the doctrine of first sale doesn't apply to software licenses, whereas it most definitely would apply to a physical object or "real property."
If you can somehow make infinite goods scarce (like DRM attempts to do but always fails), then you might have an argument for treating it like real property. But you cannot plug the analog hole until you can control every human mind on the planet and that's not going to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Second of all, tenure and licenses are most certainly treated as property in certain contexts. You're mistaken in that "property" must mean the same thing in every context it's applied.
Finally, "you cannot plug the analog hole" is flawed, if by that you mean "we shouldn't recognize property rights in something that can be accessed by defeating limits on that access." Every safe can be cracked, every lock can be broken. But we still recognize the property relationship between the 'things' under the lock and the person who controls the lock. It is no different conceptually from recognizing the property interest between the thing protected by 'DRM' and the person who made the DRM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The same is not true of ideas and expressions of them, in which to remove them once I am in possession is impossible as they remain in mind or invasive as they exist in modern storage like hard drives, CD's and through distribution means like bittorrent, or if I have exclusive ownership (the idea exists only within my head at this time) may require extremes like torture for me to give up which is already governed by laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Property - say a piece of land, is protected by laws that enable the owner to exclude others, the Govt backs these laws with force, this gives it its value.
If the Govt didn't do this, each landowner would have to maintain a private army to protect their land.
This was the situation in Europe in the middle ages.
We've progressed since then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, the government has laws that protect property rights of owners because the property is already valuable. You don't protect property that has no value. The scarcity of the property and the desire of others to possess that property is what gives it value.
A person living in anarchy without a government to protect his property rights still has valuable property if someone tries to take it from him. They wouldn't try to take it if it wasn't valuable. Governments and laws are not necessary for value to exist.
If I try to sell a product that nobody wants, the product has no value. It may have value to me, but until that value is recognized by someone else, it doesn't exist (and that other person doesn't have to represent a government or a corporation either). I also don't get taxed on the supposed value I put on that property unless it is recognized by the government.
A perfect example of this is the spider drawing prank that David Thorne did: http://www.27bslash6.com/overdue.html
He jokingly tries to pay off a debt with a drawing of a spider that he claims has the exact monetary value of the debt. But of course the person representing the company to whom he owes the debt does not recognize the value of the drawing at all. It is valueless regardless of his claims.
When law enforcement seizes illegal products, such as drugs, the news usually mentions the monetary value of the product. The law doesn't protect property rights of drug dealers in regards to their illegal drugs. But the drugs still have value because someone is willing to buy them.
Value is determined by other people. You may refuse to sell me a pencil for less than $100 dollars, but since I don't value it at $100 dollars, I won't buy it. Until you can sell it for $100 to someone who is willing to pay that much, it doesn't possess that value. I can buy a pencil for less than a dollar somewhere else (I guess - I don't buy pencils anymore and I don't know what inflation has done to the cost of pencils these days).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That may be so, but the cost of protecting it offsets that value - to marginal levels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Treating them as if they're the same is your down fall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can you physically enforce the security of imaginary property?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Trying to explain property law to laymen can be frustrating.
The first thing you learn in property law is the different kinds of property. The first property Article in the Louisiana Civil Code breaks it down quite nicely: "Things are divided into . . . corporeals and incorporeals; and movables and immovables." La. C..C. art. 448
We use different terminology in Louisiana than the other states, but the ideas are the same. Corporeals are tangible property, and incorporeals are intangible property. Movables are personal property, and immovables are real property.
I think it's the tangible/intangible property dichotomy that gives laymen the most trouble. The other sticking point in the difference between possession and ownership. These concepts aren't obvious, so it's no surprise that people don't grasp them without some study.
Wikipedia has a good article on property that's a good starting point for those interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Intellectual monopoly institutes a restriction of something highly valuable where there is none in physical fact. Furthermore, in doing so it must conflict with pre-eminent personal freedoms. That requires a good deal to be justified.
The propertarian mindset seems to produce, by its prejudicial effect, specious arguments that wholly fail in that task. I do not attribute such instances to you, though I fear some might read them in to what you say.
One example has the form of: "IP counts as property, property is solidly accepted, so IP should be too.". This fails because it is in the *differences* to other kinds of property that the questions of legitimacy arise.
Another is like this: "Just because it is possible to get free access to the property doesn't mean it is right to.". This fails trivially because it simply assumes what it needs to prove.
Any defence of intellectual monopoly must be clearly rooted in justifying its restriction of access to goods and impeding of personal freedom. Yet any use of the term or concept of 'intellectual property' tends to lead surreptitiously and hence harmfully away from fulfilling that vital duty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it really about scarcity
Not saying you are wrong but there must be something else too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it really about scarcity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A few comments
Thanks to Terry and Mike for noticing and giving thought to my article. I'm glad if it provides any food for thought.
In response to Mike, while I did not use the specific terms "abundance" or "scarcity", I am very focused on the issue that you are referring to with those terms. I call it the issue of "consumptive" versus "beneficial" use. Making use of a work of authorship is not consumptive (i.e., it doesn't consume opportunities for others to make use of the same work). It's precisely because of this important fact that I argue the scope of copyright owners' rights should be kept cabined much more strictly than it is in the realm of traditional tangible property, so that most transformative uses are simply outside the owner's right to exclude.
I'm well aware that property rhetoric can be used (and has been used) in the service of "copyright maximalism" (what I refer to in the article as "expansionism," and what I'm trying to do is drive a wedge between the two.
If you're someone who thinks we shouldn't have copyright at all, then you won't be interested in the thrust of what I'm doing. But if you think copyright might be good if properly limited, then you should be. Property theory (properly understood) provides limits on what owners can claim. Making everything an ad hoc fair use determination creates uncertainty, which leads to rights accretion.
Anyway, thanks again for your interest.
Regards,
Chris Newman
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A few comments
And that's Mike's position. He does not believe in IP, and he claims he cannot think of a single example in the history of IP where it did anybody any good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A few comments
Also, copyright and IP are not the same thing. Copyright falls under the catch-all misnomer of intellectual property, but IP includes patents, such as software patents, that it does seem like Mike is against.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A few comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
Exactly! Art and products never existed until the Statute of Anne because until the first intellectual property laws came into existence, no one was incentivized to create anything. My literature professor never would believe me when I argued that Anne Bradstreet’s poetry doesn't qualify as art. Now we see the truth!
/sarcasm (I know the sarcasm disclaimer isn't necessary for the regular readers, but we seem to have some trolls about recently that might actually agree with such statements)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A few comments
I'm not sure what goes through your mind that compels you to flat out lie. I have never made any such claim. In fact, I wrote a response to you just a couple days ago that said just the opposite.
Your compulsion to lie is really quite disgusting, especially since you called me intellectually dishonest.
What I *have* said is that in the *aggregate* copyright, as it is today, is making the economy and creativity worse off -- a statement that Chris might agree with. I admit that it has benefited some people, but very much at the expense of others and the greater good.
I would appreciate it that you do not lie when discussing this stuff. It does not make you look good, though it explains your desire to remain anonymous. You are being incredibly intellectually dishonest, and it would reflect poorly on you if you actually identified yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A few comments
OK, Mike. If you don't think IP is all bad, then tell me what's good about it. Especially copyright. I dare you to say good things about copyright. I don't think you can. Seriously, I don't.
What I *have* said is that in the *aggregate* copyright, as it is today, is making the economy and creativity worse off -- a statement that Chris might agree with. I admit that it has benefited some people, but very much at the expense of others and the greater good. I would appreciate it that you do not lie when discussing this stuff. It does not make you look good, though it explains your desire to remain anonymous. You are being incredibly intellectually dishonest, and it would reflect poorly on you if you actually identified yourself.
OK, Mike. Prove that in the aggregate it makes the economy and creativity worse. I've been waiting to see this "proof."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
Thing is when someone has their hands in their ears, they ignore what's right in front of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
Could you elaborate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
P.S. I have an odd feeling this is Average Joe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
I'd quite like to know also why someone who lambasted others for being anonymous is now himself anonymous. Is that you being a bit silly again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
It's also kind of silly that you regularly treat commentators like dogs, yet when pressed in any way to back up your position, you're quite happy to deflect. It's kind of silly you selectively ignore posts and comments so that you can pretend something hasn't already been discussed or shown, despite claiming to be a regular reader (I'm gonna go ahead and assume I was right about you being Average Joe). It's kind of silly you couldn't take the the time to write a paragraph describing how I was wrong about the law and didn't understand it, or a paragraph on why you're anonymous after having ridiculed or dismissed other AC's merely for being AC's. Why should I not do the same with you? Why should anyone here put any effort in a debate with you that you're quite happy to just deflect, dismiss or ignore when you feel like it?
This will be the last time I'll reply to you (so long as I don't get itchy fingers).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
Here's the facts of debating with you:
You've never brought up a reason for your position.
You've always tried to challenge others, while showing no evidence for your own position.
You've always dismissed arguments that are deemed "inconvenient" for you.
So no, I have no time to argue again. Good luck with everything you are doing. Hopefully more people can learn that law affects economics for good and bad, and the entertainment industry can (one day) learn that fighting filesharing is like pushing back the ocean tide. A tide which law just cannot stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
I'm an equal opportunity doubter.
My position is that nobody can say either way for sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
Well, I wouldn't call that art, but whatever. Have you tired contacting the owners of the IP and see if you can reach an agreement to license the right to make copies?
That's how most people and companies do business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
And you wouldn't call it art? What else would you call it? Notice, as well, that I am still being prevented from making art thanks to lengthy copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
If only copyright lasted a reasonable amount of time, I wouldn't have to worry about such nonsense.
So long as the dead have more rights than the living . . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
My goodness, do you ever have reading comprehension problems. I will note that you clearly have changed (subtly, but obviously) the terms of what we were discussing. It's a weak trick that I hope you never try to use in court, because a judge will slam you so hard you will want to leave the legal profession.
You initially said (falsely): "[Mike] claims he cannot think of a single example in the history of IP where it did anybody any good."
I responded, accurately, that of course IP has done some people good, just as a sugar monopoly benefited the monopolist who had it, at the expense of the rest of society.
You now respond with a claim about whether or not IP is "all bad," something I have no made any reference to one way or the other.
Please refrain from such transparently ridiculous styles of argument. It makes you look totally clueless.
OK, Mike. Prove that in the aggregate it makes the economy and creativity worse. I've been waiting to see this "proof."
Use a search engine, learn some economics. Or, if you'd like, feel free to hire me to teach you economics. My rates are probably too high for you, but it might help you not look so foolish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
Crickets... I guess he can't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
No search engines? You really don't know how to use Google? Oh well. Your loss.
I've explained the proof in detail on this site in the past. Your failure to comprehend it is not my problem, though it amuses me.
And, as mentioned, you are free to hire us if you'd like more instruction, if you can afford us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
Mike's got a tall hat but no cattle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
LOL! That's awesome! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree
I paid for my DVD, it is now my property. I will copy/sell it if I feel like it.
Can't have your cake and eat it to.
If they don't want to "sell" their property to us and instead want to rent it via EULA, they should have to pay taxes on it. Yearly Property taxes, ftw.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bull shit
http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/criminal_law/shoplifting/laws.html
Shoplifting is considered a misdemeanor petty theft if the value of the stolen goods totals less than $300 to $500. In some cases, first time offenders may be charged with a less serious crime such as disorderly conduct so as not to face the consequences imposed by shoplifting laws.
If an offender has a history of shoplifting or the value of the stolen goods exceeds $500, shoplifting laws often yield harsher penalties. An offender can be charged with grand theft or larceny , both of which are felony crimes. Under shoplifting laws, a person who is convicted of this crime may receive a sentence that includes jail or prison time, punitive fines, community service, and/or other penalties.
----------
Currently downloading/uploading are mostly considered civil offenses. They should be treated the same as shoplifting. The more you take, the higher the penalty. YOU SHOULD be charged with grand theft if you upload/download thousands of files.
Me, I think you slime ball scum bags should have your hands cut off as they do to thieves in various Arabic nations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bull shit
Right now, many many people seem to disagree that "downloading and trading files", as you call it, is an immoral action (just check how many people are downloading/uploading files for any given "illegal" torrent). My guess is that, eventually, this will no longer be considered illegal, since:
a) the law is impossible to enforce
b) there is no real proof of the supposed negative economical impact of "file-sharing"
c) nobody should be able to own ideas (or the right to prevent others from making copies of their ideas) in the first place
By your logic, about 40% of the people in the world (I just picked a random number...I have no statistics) are pure evil and should have their hands chopped off. Never mind that there are MUCH WORSE things going on in the world that go unpunished (famine, war, poverty...). Nope, gotta keep feeding the ol' record labels or else they might starve. Hey, you know what's funny? Apparently they are making much more money today than they ever did. Poor bastards.
*Downloads another file*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bull shit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bull shit
The ONLY reason people make statements such as, "The ONLY reason people download and trade files is because they are immoral," is because they are absolutists.
Would you advocate for the cutting off of the hands of a poor person who stole life-saving medication in order to save someone's life? That IS shoplifting and there's a good reason we don't cut off hands for it. It also wouldn't necessarily be unethical for the person to steal in that scenario.
You should take an ethics class if you think anything is that black and white.
Why would we cut off the hands of a significant portion of our population just to protect the failing business models of entrenched companies who refuse to adapt to market conditions? We'd be impacting the earning potential of citizens who pay taxes. If they can't work without their hands, then they can't pay taxes. Essential services cannot be funded. The loss of income would also impact their ability to purchase products from the same companies who you're saying should get this kind of protectionism. Some file-sharers are children. Would you argue that cutting off the hands of children is ethical?
But all of that speculation is irrelevant because cruel and unusual punishment is unconstitutional.
Do you actually believe your own rhetoric? When should I be over to your house with a hacksaw? Surely you've consumed goods without paying for them. Ever listened to the radio? Are you reading this blog? Walked out of the room when the commercials are playing on the TV? No, of course you haven't, because that would be immoral.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: bull shit
Did we tolerate a lawless west? Should we have tolerated the rise of mobsters?
Lots of people feel quite justified in lying, cheating, stealing when it suits them. A somewhat smaller number are quite capable of rape, maiming and killing.
Most of these people are kept in line by rule of law and knowing that they will be punished if they break the law.
Groups of people are quite capable of rationalizing doing things which many would not do in a one on one situation. This happens with all groups, corporate, nonprofit, government and church. How many clergy administer one on one therapy to their flock or collectively cover for pedophiles in their ranks?
The software community suffers from this problem.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: bull shit
Yes we did, for quite some time. Some of the worst injustices in the West were at the hands of the robber barons and the vast corruption revolving around the railroad expansion. We also had terrible worker's rights and violent union busting by Pinkerton Detectives. What's your point?
"Should we have tolerated the rise of mobsters?"
Are you seriously equating copyright violation with mobsters?
Where's the racketeering? Oh yeah, that's the current flood of dubious patent lawsuits regarding obvious software patents that lead to "licensing deals" despite some of the patent holders never actually producing anything of value.
Where's the extortion? Oh yeah, that's the current flood of copyright lawsuits and settlement offers/lawsuit threats by groups like Righthaven LLC and the US Copyright Group.
Where's the corruption and bribery? Oh yeah, that's how we got ACTA and the DMCA.
Where's the loansharking? Oh yeah, that's the "advances" that RIAA artists get when they release an album that strangely sells millions but never recoups the costs so that the band can actually make a decent living.
About the only thing I don't have an example for is murder, but 4 out of 5 ain't bad.
"Lots of people feel quite justified in lying, cheating, stealing when it suits them."
Yes. Amongst all of these people, some are managers and CEOs of large corporations. Some of these people are lawyers who happily sue anybody for their own profit with no concern for ethics. Some of these people lobby for harsher punishments of civil violations like copyright infringement.
"Most of these people are kept in line by rule of law and knowing that they will be punished if they break the law."
It seems the richer these people are, the less they are kept in line by the rule of law or fear of punishment. They can afford to buy legislators who can change the laws in their favor and preserve their obsolete business models. They can afford to hire lawyers to sue anyone who crosses them.
You know who can't afford lawyers and lawsuits? The teenagers, single moms, and elderly folks who the RIAA sued for copyright infringement.
(By the way, the full signature and contact information at the end of all your posts is unnecessary and annoying. People can find all that information on your website by clicking on your username. They could also google you if they really wanted to know more about you.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: bull shit
"Should we have tolerated the rise of mobsters?"
Why did mobsters rise in our society?
1930s = Prohibition.
The government lost the ability to regulate alcohol feeling that "faith based" enforcement would stop the people from drinking.
That didn't work.
Or maybe Ronald meant the gangstas of the current era.
1970s - Controlled Substances Act
Effectively bans drugs by a structure system.
Pros - Safer streets? HAHAHA!
Cons - Decay in inner cities as youths are pulled into the drug game. Delays in people going to hospitals, causing Overdose Deaths to increase
200+% increase in drug arrests around the country. More people are arrested in this country than anywhere else in the WORLD by a very large amount.
Worse healthcare since money is spent on enforcement, not research.
I could go on. The fact remains that the government's "rule of law" as alluded to can affect the behavior of a society.
So this?
"Most of these people are kept in line by rule of law and knowing that they will be punished if they break the law."
Is entirely bullshit. 'Scuse my French. People respond to incentives. That's a rule of economics. If the law effectively bans a behavior, you've just created black market demand for it. The war on drugs is a great example. $70 billion dollars annually goes into enforcement for the DEA, FBI, and all those other acronyms. And for what? A drainage to our society in more incarcerations, more enforcement, in a vicious cycle that will go on until the law is reversed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bull shit
At last, a point of agreement. People produce intellectual property in large part for the "incentives". Government offers us a property right to produce. Big companies and mobs of rift raft try to defraud us of those incentives and then whine when we slap their paddies.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bull shit
People produce intellectual property in large part for the "incentives".
That's the cart before the horse.
Copyright comes AFTER something is created, not before. In essence, the argument you're presenting is that IP protection is needed in the before time when they're creating.
How is that ever the case?
Let's really put this in invention terms.
The new Honda robot - did it need protection or did it just need improvement?
In effect, if Honda wasn't so successful in other areas, they would not be tinkering with robotics. As we're learning more and more, the patent and copyright litigation slows down this process a lot more than it helps with its supposed fair litigation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bull shit
Are you saying all artists only ever create art for the money? If so, they're pretty stupid because a lot of them hardly ever make anything off of their art.
Certainly not all inventors create for the sake of money. Some people just like to solve problems. It's great to get paid for it, or even to be able to make an entire living off of it, but money is not a sina qua non for creation.
Or is this a "no true Scotsman" argument where you're only referring to creators who are actually incentivized thus, so you can claim that all of the people you're referring to are in fact incentivized?
It's quite apparent that the incentive for many individuals and companies in filing for certain patents is purely to make money even when the patent is a joke. The incentive works all too well when people who don't add any value use the patent system to simply subtract value by getting paid for the minimal efforts of patent filing and threats of lawsuits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
star trek repilicators
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: star trek repilicators
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: star trek repilicators
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What About the Tax?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What About the Tax?
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
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 chronology ]
Fatally Flawed Reasoning
Mike Masnick has admitted that inventions are scarce but argues that once something is invented that there should be minimal restrictions on use of the invention. The essence of his argument is that those using an invention, who often characterize their use as innovation, interests should have priority over those who actually produce the invention.
What he fails to understand is that the patent system is meant to maximize inventions so as to facilitate (for a price) society's advancement.
Mike's reasoning on this topic is fatally flawed.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
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 chronology ]
Re: Fatally Flawed Reasoning
The problem is that most of IP law recognizes a property right in the act of copying, not in the act of creating. Now the obvious rejoinder (spread out over the preceding 100+ comments) is that giving a property right in exclusive copying is necessary to incentivize creation.
That misses the point though. Thinking about rights as incentives and thinking about rights as property often yield divergent outcomes.
For example, take the limited duration of a patent. From an incentive perspective, this makes sense. We only want to grant enough of a right to encourage people to invent, since if we grant anything past that, we might begin to discourage others from making improvements. But from a property standpoint, all of this is irrelevant. My house doesn't revert to the public after 20 years. Nor do I have to grant an easement to my neighbor so that he can make improvements based on my land, even if I am being adequately compensated.
And that's (I think) Mike's point. Property works well when you recognize the scarcity in X by recognizing a property right in X. It does not work so well, when you recognize a scarcity in X by allocating a property right in Y.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fatally Flawed Reasoning
How would you recognize property rights in the act of creating? I don't follow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Changing the terms of a deal.
Isn't the essence of this argument about those who do no InventING trying to lower the compensation of those who do?
It is an attempt to change the terms of the contract between inventors and society to the detriment of the inventors.
Now, how about your boss comes in next week and says, Andrew, I only want to pay you twenty percent and by the way it is retroactive and not negotiable.
I think you might take exception to this.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
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 chronology ]
Re: Changing the terms of a deal.
No. If a company takes a raw invention, and brings it to market, then that company has added value to that invention. And done it at great personal expense. Because of this, the inventor is more likely to get compensated, and for higher rates than he/she would get otherwise.
Now, how about your boss comes in next week and says, Andrew, I only want to pay you twenty percent and by the way it is retroactive and not negotiable.
I would think my boss works for the *IAA. The public domain is the public's "payment" for the contractual granting of copyright, and what you describe is exactly what has been happening for over thirty years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What About the Tax?
===========================
Technically businesses pass on their costs to their customer, taxes are only one cost of many. But now that you mention it, how much extra are citizens paying in taxes when Governments have to pass on the cost of creating, enforcing, and maintaining these expensive copyright and patent regimes at the behest of those who stand to gain from it? Shouldn't they at least pay their own way? Is it fair for taxpayers to be paying for laws that only end up taking away what's left of their paycheques?
One additional benefit of taxing "Intellectual Property" is one way Governments could recoup these massive costs being shouldered by taxpayers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Background Check Companies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]