61–70 of 109 posts
The standard of "xx years since the death of the author" can be quite awkward when the author is not prominent. Imagine if computer code was "10 years since the death of the author" and you found something on an archive. Better is "xx years since creation."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just didn't know that Mickey Mouse was also trademarked. I do understand the differences between the three, however.
I had a really long convoluted discussion with an IP lawyer, and he claimed that only specific instances of Mickey Mouse's likeness were protected by trademark. I haven't really absorbed his argument, but he seemed pretty sure about it, and that we needed something else to (legitimately, in both our opinions) protect Disney's ability to control their brand even if copyright expired. He recommended giving Disney somet…
Even if specific instances of Mickey Mouse's likeness are trademarked, I have a hard time believing that someone could be selling "Mickey Mouse" t-shirts on the street and not be in a risky legal grey zone.
[I'll also note that as an IP lawyer he probably has a rather conservative view of this. Thinking from Disney's perspective they don't want any trademark lawsuit to be in a legal grey zone. They want them all to be slam-dunks so that they can get their way.]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They were given the copyright only with the limitation that it would expire someday. You have the argument backwards. Can any one make the argument why we should give Disney an unlimited monopoly on the content they create? Why should we pay for courts and systems to enforce their artificial scarcity, if they cannot uphold their side of the agreement?
"They were given the copyright only with the limitation that it would expire someday. You have the argument backwards." Maybe not, if it's something I invent or write, why does someone have to give me rights over it? They shouldn't take them instead... "shall not." I understand how the constitution is written but
They don't have to give you rights over it. You already get all of the natural rights associated with it. What you don't get is the additional right to prevent other people from using it or copying it until a government gives you that right.
Restricting other people is an artificial construct and that is enforced by the government. This is artificial scarcity unlike property rights where ownership naturally deprives someone else of the property.
Ideally, the government only grants you a limited (time) monopoly in exchange for incentivizing people to create. If we aren't going to get anything in exchange, why should we grant you additional rights?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They were given the copyright only with the limitation that it would expire someday. You have the argument backwards. Can any one make the argument why we should give Disney an unlimited monopoly on the content they create? Why should we pay for courts and systems to enforce their artificial scarcity, if they cannot uphold their side of the agreement?
"They were given the copyright only with the limitation that it would expire someday. You have the argument backwards." Maybe not, if it's something I invent or write, why does someone have to give me rights over it? They shouldn't take them instead... "shall not." I understand how the constitution is written but
You do not control the neurons in other people's brains. If you share an idea, it is as much theirs as yours. If someone produces something based upon that idea, you cannot rightly take it from them because the thing itself was never yours. There is no way to enforce IP without undermining physical property rights.
They shouldn't take them instead... "shall not."
Sidestepping the issue of espionage, nobody is "taking" anything from you. In virtually all of the cases that attract attention, IP was intentionally shared. If you publish a book, you can't rightly turn around and yell at someone for reading it. Futhermore, producing a copy of a work does not deprive any of its existing possessors.
I understand how the constitution is written
It's the why that matters. You are looking at this from the perspective that IP rights are negative rights (= freedoms), when they are clearly not. When you recognize that IP rights are positive rights (= privileges), then you will see that the authors of the Constitution were being generous in affording this protection, which in the "life, liberty, [physical] property" framework you would otherwise not have.
It is better to think that you do not "own" IP, but rather hold it in trust for the public, and in the interim, you get to reap some benefit as recompense for your creative contribution.
To me the whole copyright extension issue is a good argument for justification of piracy. If the copyright industry side can just replace the social agreement (protection of works in exchange for them going public after a reasonable amount of time) with one they like more, why would it be immoral for the content consumers to to the same? I'm talking about the ethical side, not legalities. The fact that said consumers…
a good argument for justification of piracy Which, by the way, is indistinguishable from rationalizing the sentiment of "I want stuff without having to pay for it"
I don't want to rationalize stuff, but I've just finished reading Locke's "Two Treatises on Government", one of the guys that started all this "the only true freedom is the protection of property"-thingie, and I just want to add that irrespective of the fact that one might agree or not with Locke's views you have to take into consideration that it has not always been like this (i.e. private property being "sacred" etc). In fact, Locke starts by arguing against people (Filmer and others) who were saying something of the like that the monarchs of the time had an irrevocable right to rule (and presumably to own everything under the skies), handed down (the right to rule) to them from generation to generation since Adam (the Genesis Adam). To say nothing of the 20th century madness that afflicted almost half of the known world, I'm talking about the Marxist/Leninist views on property.
What I want to say is that what constitutes "property", "to own stuff" etc. has not always been "set in stone" as a "moral" thingie (whatever definition of "moral" you want to come up with). So people for whom piracy is "immoral" are taking a very short view of the whole thing, and possibly also deluding themselves into thinking that what is "moral" is almost by definition "immortal" and forever. They should take a more pragmatic view.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"They were given the copyright only with the limitation that it would expire someday. You have the argument backwards." Maybe not, if it's something I invent or write, why does someone have to give me rights over it? They shouldn't take them instead... "shall not." I understand how the constitution is written but
> why does someone have to give me rights over it? They don't have to give you rights over it. You already get all of the natural rights associated with it. What you don't get is the additional right to prevent other people from using it or copying it until a government gives you that right. Restricting other people is an artificial construct and that is enforced by the government. This is artificial scarcity unlike…
If you can copy my code /book or whatnot what rights do I have? Almost none. If there was no government, I could kill you for it to maybe scare others.
> "This is artificial scarcity unlike property rights where ownership naturally deprives someone else of the property."
Can I use your house while you are away? On the nightstand, I'll leave $5 or whatever the wear and tear might be for the night.
Or "clone" Coca Cola? They can keep theirs
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> why does someone have to give me rights over it? They don't have to give you rights over it. You already get all of the natural rights associated with it. What you don't get is the additional right to prevent other people from using it or copying it until a government gives you that right. Restricting other people is an artificial construct and that is enforced by the government. This is artificial scarcity unlike…
"What you don't get is the additional right to prevent other people from using it or copying it until a government gives you that right." If you can copy my code /book or whatnot what rights do I have? Almost none. If there was no government, I could kill you for it to maybe scare others. > "This is artificial scarcity unlike property rights where ownership naturally deprives someone else of the property." Can I use…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's been plenty of input from the people. The people vote every 2 years for representatives and every 6 years for senators. By and large, the people's input has been to keep the congresspeople who voted for these extensions. The reality is that most of "the people" just don't care about this issue. But they've had their input.
You can't oversimplify this. The issue goes beyond simple voting because in the grand scheme of things copyright isn't as important as other representative factors. Would you honestly say that you would vote for a representative who agreed with you on copyright agenda but disagreed on all other aspects (or at the very least, most of the categories that are directly important to you)? That's the choice we're asked to…
Exactly. Due to the imperfect nature of our democracy, copyright has never been voted on by the general public. The general public has effectively voted for foreign policy, the economy, numerous social issues including the right to vote, reproductive rights, marriage rights, etc.
However the public has never effectively voted for more minor issues like copyright. The only people who are effectively voicing their opinions are politicians themselves and the corporations who pay them. It has never been a large enough issue for the general population dictate on, one way or the other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean because there were no good music artists like Elvis and the Beatles 20 years ago? Or even Michael Jackson for that matter?
Ah. Perhaps DHH was right... We're heading OT, but perhaps that I didn't make obvious that my comparison was relative is what caused your confusion. Relative to new stuff, there is very little pirating of stuff over 20 years old (probably even over 1 year old since content is ephemeral). While I don't have the numbers to hand, I'm willing to assert that the amount of pirating of Elvis, The Beatles, etc is tiny relati…
According to Last.Fm statistics it does not seem that any musical band is listened to more than The Beatles. And virtually everything by The Beatles in the circulation is "pirated". And this stuff should be damn near public domain if you ask me.
To me the whole copyright extension issue is a good argument for justification of piracy. If the copyright industry side can just replace the social agreement (protection of works in exchange for them going public after a reasonable amount of time) with one they like more, why would it be immoral for the content consumers to to the same? I'm talking about the ethical side, not legalities. The fact that said consumers…
a good argument for justification of piracy Which, by the way, is indistinguishable from rationalizing the sentiment of "I want stuff without having to pay for it"