Discussion: On Copyright
738 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 30 Newer→ Last
-
I just picked up this via Robin Gross at IPWatch:
I couldn't resist forwarding this one ...
Lebanon Claiming Only It Owns Hummus, Falafel, tabouleh And Baba Gannouj
Another day, another ridiculous intellectual property lawsuit. Along the same lines as various regions in France declaring that only they can sell "Champagne" or Greece being the only one allowed to offer "feta," a group in Lebanon is claiming that various popular middle eastern foods such as hummus, falafel, tabouleh and baba gannouj are property of Lebanon and Lebanon alone. In fact, the group is planning to sue Israel for "stealing" its food. They're actually claiming that this could be a violation of a "food copyright" (something that
doesn't actually exist). Specifically, the group says that since Israel sells such foods, it's taking "tens of millions of dollars" away from Lebanon, where those foods should be bought. This, folks, is what happens when you build up a society around the idea of "owning" infinite goodshttp://techdirt.com/articles/20081007/1531482481.shtml</quote>
-
...because, "Intellectual Property" is simply and expression of ideas. We have ideas all the time, probably hundreds a day. Writing those ideas down is a pretty trivial task (whether in book or computer code form). The idea that the action of writing out an idea should somehow exclude everyone else having a similar thought and acting upon it is not only repugnant, it is stupid.
This is true, but as robbery said earlier about songs, a creative work is not just an idea, it's a long hard slog that involves many specialist skills. Anyone can write a story, but very few can write a good story and it usually involves a hell of a lot more than just putting the words on paper. For me at least my indignation about having something stolen is proportional to the amount of time and effort I've put in. And also as I alluded to before and Islander has said, how much of me ends up in there.
Creative works can be a representation of deep things about a person in a way that other types of IP aren't. Perhaps part of the problem is that the same copyright law is used in both cases.
-
The idea that the action of writing out an idea should somehow exclude everyone else having a similar thought and acting upon it is not only repugnant, it is stupid.
repugnant a great word.
ok apply your views to the early elvis recordings. why are they public domain?
someone paid good money to record those versions of those songs, create a physical master,etc. they're more than just ideas. they're an actual thing, a thing which modern technology has allowed us to make into ones and zeros and freely move around the world. why after a certain period of time should those things stop belonging to the creator and or the people the creator has decided to pass the rights on to. why does our law which sees fit to give that product laws to back up its rights see fit to take them away after a certain period of time?i'm not saying its right or wrong, I'm just asking for justification and comparing it to how we see other products and property produced in society.
If I was entrepreneurial enough recorded elvis's singing (similar in nature to investing in land which bears oil) and I exploited that entrepreneurial move by producing copies of that work and deriving income from it (like pumping oil out of the ground) why does my right to ownership and control of that property cease after a certain period?
In the oil example I don't cease to own the land.
the land and the oil it contains benefits society, why not grab that after 50 years (this is imaginary land with limitless oil in it before someone grabs that argument) -
because, "Intellectual Property" is simply and expression of ideas.
you talk of it likes its a conversation over a cup of tea.
creative works be they stories music, inventions etc all take a lot more effort that that. 99.99999999% take a lot of development trial and error and dare I say it work. -
I said "in the main" because there are always exceptions, but it was pointed out up-thread that exceptions like Rowling (and Dickens was bigger in his day than Rowling in hers) don't count.
No doubt Rowling, who often has her copyright infringed, and on occasion pursues legally those that do so, will be delighted to know that she doesn't count.
It doesn't particularly matter which author, artist etc you choose for your example, the laws have to apply for all, big or small.
-
early elvis recordings... they're an actual thing
They way you describe them, the 'thing' they are is information. Information by definition is copied and transmitted. As they (not me so much) say, information wants to be free - that telling people not to use information they possess is silly and wrong.
Copyrights aren't treated like physical property because they aren't physical property. For starters, I can 'steal' your music, but you will still have your music. I will have violated whatever distribution rights you have, but that's not the same thing. It is a different thing, and is treated differently.
(You might still ask your question - why does the right expire? - but you can't argue from identity with physical property)
As I saud upthread, copyright violation is more like jumping the fence at the swimming pool than theft.
Somebody owns, for instance, the Elvis master tapes and can control their use. Up until the expiry date, they had (owned) rights over how the music was used.
Incidentally, one point I have sympathy with Richard Stallman (a man who will probably annoy you if you look him up) is the term "Intellectual Property" should be used with caution. Copyright is not trademarks is not patents.
No doubt Rowling, who often has her copyright infringed, and on occasion pursues legally those that do so...
Speaking of Stallman, he has a kind of passive boycott out on Harry Potter (just don't buy the books, he says) over the Canadian case where a bookseller accidentally (?) sold some of the books before the embargo and the publisher go a court order that any people who had bought the books should not read them.
-
As I saud upthread, copyright violation is more like jumping the fence at the swimming pool than theft.
Also not something that everyone can do 20/50 etc years after the swimming pool was built.
-
Also not something that everyone can do 20/50 etc years after the swimming pool was built.
Perhaps that one wasn't durable enough to throw in at that point.
Anyway:
-
you talk of it likes its a conversation over a cup of tea.
That's exactly what it is like. How do you differentiate between a "good" idea and a "cup of tea" idea? Your "individual ownership" ring fences everything into a series of mini monopolies. We are talking about means to reproduction here, not physical objects.
Whilst you might touting the policies of the Libertarianz party not many rational people, whether economists, socialists, or conservatives believe that that approach is a generally good thing. Governments generally bend over backwards to avoid situations where capitalists get to a monopolistic position and when they do get into that position special rules apply to their business.
-
They way you describe them, the 'thing' they are is information.
which is the common mistake a layperson makes. you're looking at the end result, not the resources effort time and skill that went into that end product. music isn't information, its entertainment. you use the information angle as an excuse to justify marginalizing its commercial value.
Copyrights aren't treated like physical property because they aren't physical property.
and yet they are given property type rights by those enlightened enough to comprehend their worth, but only for a limited time. my question still stands un answered. why are they given laws protecting their value and distribution and then those laws expire. if its good enough for 70 years then why not forever. Just cos society deems their work 'cool' doesn't justify ganging up on once sector and removing their property rights. I'm waiting with interest for the justification for that.
-
that's just plain stupid prejudice.
Er. Do you know what I mean by the Californian Ideology? I honestly don't see how it is at all prejudiced, or at all stupid, and I certainly don't see how Doctorow's passport makes any odds. The place I first met the term was a rather scholarly MIT Press anthology of writing about sovereignty and cyberspace. ( Crypto anarchy, cyberstates, and pirate utopias. Edited by Peter Ludlow. Published by MIT Press 2001.)
I actually think that it is a very useful analytical tool for working through the implications of the Wired model of the future. It is a completely valid method to use.
And that's what I see lying behind a lot of the free culture stuff -- the idea that the marvellous technological future will deliver unto us, and that we should sweep aside the debris of the past, and a failure to actually come back down and work through, in solid terms, what these changes will consist of at the micro-level. Tofflerianism, if you will.
I mean,
I think he works bloody hard.
?
Of course he works bloody hard; that's the whole point. He works very hard at, and is very good at, publicising his causes and himself. Authors don't want to work bloody hard at self-promotion & publishing; that's what the publisher is for, and it doesn't have much of anything to do with their core competency, writing. Can you imagine Kornbluth -- or MacLeod or Purnelle even -- trying to follow the Doctorow model?
More realistic is the n true fans model, but even that relies on a very active & personable creator.
-
That's exactly what it is like.
spoke either like a man who's never actually created anything, or as a genius who hasn't had to work hard in his life :)
Either way you don't value the work of creatives which is sad, but a society who doesn't comprehend and value its creative types is a society that won't progress as a whole because it gives no incentive to do so. -
@robbery
Your cup is half empty. Society doesn't gang up on creators - it grants creators an opportunity to profit from their work, exclusively, for a period of time. Included in that is a form of control over how that work can be presented.You can talk about copyright being property till you are blue in the face - it won't change the fact that, under that same law, it is not property.
Copyright isn't removed because something is deemed to be cool, therefore let's all have a bit of it. Copyright expires as an intentional part of its design.
-
3410,
Your "individual ownership" ring fences everything into a series of mini monopolies. We are talking about means to reproduction here, not physical objects.
Sure, but the onus is on you to demonstrate essential difference between the two.
The swimming pool owner is well within his rights (I think we all agree) to deny entry to all and sundry, but this too limits public benefit, despite not impacting the owner's access, so why should IP be considered different?
-
@ robbery
spoke either like a man who's never actually created anything, or as a genius who hasn't had to work hard in his life :)
Don would be the first to say he is no genius (sorry, Don ;-) but lots of people think he's quite clever. He also works bloody hard at what he does, which is creative in a particular environment, which is computer software and an open source-based business model.
Either way you don't value the work of creatives which is sad, but a society who doesn't comprehend and value its creative types is a society that won't progress as a whole because it gives no incentive to do so
You make assumptions on two levels:
1) that Don doesn't value creative people, which is frankly bullshit. To the contrary, the argument around copyright is expressly about putting value on the work;
2) that creatives are inherently valuable, which is also bullshit, IMHO. Some are, some aren't.What classifies a creative? A 5 year-old's finger painting is a creative work, surely? Does it carry the same value as the Mona Lisa? Or, to use something still in copyright, a Colin McCahon painting?
It's the work that gets valued, not the person. The person is not diminished by a low value on the work. And it's the market that decides the value. An creator who makes work that can't find an audience and therefore doesn't sell, is out of luck. But that's the way life works.
Should they be rewarded simply for gluing a paper cup to a piece of cardboard, if that's what their 'art' consists of, even though no one wants it?
Was the possibility of selling stuff the only reason to make it? I know no creative writers who think like that, although i know plenty of journalists. Likewise, while all the artists I know would love to sell their work (paint's expensive, after all), that's not the reason they painted it, or sculpted it. They had something to say, and are overjoyed (usually) when someone puts a dollar value on the piece as a reward.
-
You can talk about copyright being property till you are blue in the face - it won't change the fact that, under that same law, it is not property.
Laws come from somewhere - typically principles, but not always. Arguing that copyright isn't property just because the law says it isn't, doesn't really make sense in the context of this discussion.
Given that a lot of people have argued that the law should be changed (in various ways), if copyright isn't the same as property rights, then I'd be much more interested if you stepped back before the law and say why copy rights are different. That's a much more useful discussion.
Currently your argument is about as useful as "sodomy is illegal, so gay people having sex should be arrested".
-
@ robbery
which is the common mistake a layperson makes. you're looking at the end result, not the resources effort time and skill that went into that end product. music isn't information, its entertainment. you use the information angle as an excuse to justify marginalizing its commercial value.
Layman? I'll have you know I'm a talent amateur.
I think you're changing horses here. I was just saying the fact they both involve legal rights isn't a reason things and IP should be treated the same.
And incidentally, saying something should have a commercial value because it was difficult to do, or saying people should pay for anything they benefit from - I believe these lead to unpalatable consequences.
As I said, I wasn't actually trying to answer your question but I'll have a go:
If its good enough for 70 years then why not forever?
(Just for kicks, my answers will also cover "If it expires, why not do away with it entirely?")
a) because people mostly think it shouldn't be that way.
b) because through either experience or judgment it seems the state thinks it's in everyone's interest - trying to maximise all those benefits people have cited on either side while still being fair on everyone - for it to be about this way.Since the whole thing basically an arbitrary balancing act, I think those reasons are sufficient.
More (or less, or different) may be better or worse, but we will need to argue from evidence rather than principle. I've enjoyed the brief moments here that involved actual examples.
Physical property works differently because the costs and benefits (and logistics and, yes, perceptions) of physical property are different. Which is why the state doesn't take a third of your net creative output into a copyright equivalent of the general fund every year.
-
3410,
Physical property works differently because the costs and benefits (and logistics and, yes, perceptions) of physical property are different. Which is why the state doesn't take a third of your net creative output into a copyright equivalent of the general fund every year.
Actually, income from creative sources is taxed at the same rates as any other.
-
Currently your argument is about as useful as "sodomy is illegal, so gay people having sex should be arrested".
Daniel Davies has quite a brilliant take on this -- i.e, that copyright should continue as illegal because then lots of people break the law, and this incubates a healthy distrust of the law. See this and this.
Which is why the state doesn't take a third of your net creative output into a copyright equivalent of the general fund every year.
Er, it does -- I'm pretty sure you pay tax on royalties. Likewise, the state doesn't confiscate land per se, but it does take income arising from land.
Or, to use something still in copyright, a Colin McCahon painting?
Just to make the point about people still being quite at liberty to build on McCahon's work, you might be interested in this artist, Imants Tillers. (Actually, a bit of a bad example, 'cause some of that's cultural stuff about the artist's will being law etc, but eh, I like Tillers.)
-
There seems to be a lot of catagory confusion jumping around here- and some mistakes about what can and cannot be copyrighted. "Ideas" and "themes" are just not the sort of thing copyright applies to. Inventions can be patented, an idea can be turned into a painting or a novel: but gotta agree with robbery- it's ahm, not a simple jump from one to t'other!
An artistic work by two artists will take the same ideas and themes and turn them into unique individual works. THAT UNIQUENESS is pretty much what we value in art and artists.
It's also where conceptually (if not always in practice) copyright and patents tend to diverge. Scientific and technological inventions often occur almost simultaneously- because a lot of people are working along the same borders of knowledge. While it may not be a perfect fit, in science, it's often much more like the discovery of something that's already there; in technology, an adapation of the science to meet a human purpose.
Creating art can feel to artists a little like this discovery. Yet it's the individual's particular expression- their "take" on the material- which gives it more- or less- value. It's just not the case that if writer A or scultor B didn't happen to do it, someone else would have come along and written the same novel or crafted the same shape. -
@ 3410
Yeah, I did know that. I was going to say that wasn't my point, but if you try to apply my analogy that is where you end up. Having a bad day for that. Is there a pill I can take?
The other sentences I'm standing by.
-
I must say I'm in general agreement with Lyndon's 1:32 -- i.e, it's all pragmatic, and there isn't a Platonic ideal of copyright out there in the Empyrean. The only bit that I feel isn't arbitrary is the moral rights parts, but that's just because I'm a Romantic cult of Genius type.
-
3410,
@ Lyndon,
Sorry it came out sounding so bitchy. :)
My pills don't seem to be working well today. -
... although now I think about I would like you all to imagine I made a point about physical property not being inviolate either in some clever way.
-
@ 3410 - not at all : I had that one coming
Post your response…
This topic is closed.