Copyright

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Umm... it promotes creativity because it rewards creativity.

We just must be careful we don't reward it beyond the value of innovation and creativity to society.

That is, just because it is good to reward something doesn't mean the rewards should be infinite. There are costs to granting a copyright and we must not ignore the costs and only look at the benefits. That's what bad economists (politicians) do.

And who decides what amount of reward is appropriate?  You?

I'd like to know what these scary costs to society are for granting long term patents and copyrights.  Beyond the basic logistics of issuing and adjudicating patents, how much does it really cost society?  Put a price on it, justify that price, and demonstrate that the costs exceed the value of incentivizing innovation.

I can tell you how the arbitrarily short time spans for patents withholds progress.  I see it fairly regularly working at an engineering R&D company.  It's a normal part of our business to do market analyses and use the results to determine what the payback time frame would be for a given development effort.  It takes a long time to develop an idea fully, productize it, test it, market it, and begin selling it for a profit.  It happens often enough that developing a new idea would pay off over time, but not in the arbitrarily short time span that the government grants.

I can name, right off the top of my head, at least half a dozen great ideas that would advance the state of the art in semiconductor processing and next-gen energy production that we are NOT developing because the development timeframe would be too long, and the legal time limit for profiting on the idea too short.  

In that regard, following Rev's logic, the current patent law could be said to be unconstitutional because it's too short, because it fails to protect patent holders enough to promote progress in science and the useful arts.

[Seenterman]

Quick observations / Question:

If I successfully created a cold fusion reactor and then liberated the world of it's dependency on electricity I could patent by product for 20 years and make money off of it exclusively but after 20 years other people get to use the exact same design legally.


But If I write a song that songs protected for 70 years if i drop dead the day after writing it?

WTF?

Oh yea and the imaginary amounts the RIAA and MPAA are allowed to sue for are just outrageous, people don't get awarded that much in damages in wrongful death suits what the frak makes them thing their owed a couple of million dollars because someone downloaded a few songs.  

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Because your right to solely exploit an intellectual abstraction exists only because the COTUS says it does and for the purpose the COTUS says does.  RevDisk quoted the appropriate passage.  You may not like the passage, but there you are.

Uh, no.  The constitution clause on promoting science and useful arts does not create the right to intellectual property.  That'd be like saying 2A creates the right to bear arms, and that the RKBA would vanish if the 2A ever went away.

Whether it be IP or RKBA, the constitution recognizes preexisting rights and defines how FedGov is to behave in regards to those rights.  In the case of RKBA, the 2A sez that FedGov shall not infringe.  Int he case of IP, the constitution says that FedGov (not the states) shall manage the patent/copyright offices.

[makattak]

And who decides what amount of reward is appropriate?  You?

I'd like to know what these scary costs to society are for granting long term patents and copyrights.  Beyond the basic logistics of issuing and adjudicating patents, how much does it really cost society?  Put a price on it, justify that price, and demonstrate that the costs exceed the value of incentivizing innovation.

I can tell you how the arbitrarily short time spans for patents withholds progress.  I see it fairly regularly working at an engineering R&D company.  It's a normal part of our business to do market analyses and use the results to determine what the payback time frame would be for a given development effort.  It takes a long time to develop an idea fully, productize it, test it, market it, and begin selling it for a profit.  It happens often enough that developing a new idea would pay off over time, but not in the arbitrarily short time span that the government grants.

I can name, right off the top of my head, at least half a dozen great ideas that would advance the state of the art in semiconductor processing and next-gen energy production that we are NOT developing because the development timeframe would be too long, and the legal time limit for profiting on the idea too short.  

In that regard, following Rev's logic, the current patent law could be said to be unconstitutional because it's too short, because it fails to protect patent holders enough to promote progress in science and the useful arts.

We're not arguing patents, actually. If you argue patent is too short, I'd not be opposed to lengthening it. I think the work that is done under patent is far more valuable than what we protect with copyrights.

I brought patent into this as it seems absurd that you only get 20 years for creating something tangible and helpful to society, but you get (estimated) 120 years for writing "Everybody Poops".

The disparity is jarring in its folly. Should patent be longer? Maybe. Should copyright be shorter? DEFINITELY.

Edit: Dumb typos.

[makattak]

Uh, no.  The constitution clause on promoting science and useful arts does not create the right to intellectual property.  That'd be like saying 2A creates the right to bear arms, and that the RKBA would not vanish if the 2A ever went away.

Whether it be IP or RKBA, the constitution recognizes preexisting rights and defines how FedGov is to behave in regards to those rights.

Uh, no. The constitutional creation of a power to create copyright and patent is a recognition that no one can own an idea, but as we wish to encourage new ideas, innovation, and creativity, we offer a time where people can benefit from the value of their idea.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

We're not arguing patyents, actually. If you argue patent is too short, I'd not be opposed to lengthening it. I think the work that is done under patent is far more valuable than what we protect with copyrights.

I brought patent into this as it seems absurd that you only get 20 years for creating something tangible and helpful to society, but you get (estimated) 120 years for writing "Everybody Poops".

The disparity is jarring in its folly. Should patent be longer? Maybe. Should copyright be shorter? DEFINITELY.

I fail to see how patents are inherently more valuable than copyrights.  Entertainment and art is no less important, valuable, or desirable than widgets.

ALL ip should be protected better.  Patent does indeed have a ways to go to catch up to copyright, but that's no reason to cut back on copyright.

[makattak]

I fail to see how patents are inherently more valuable than copyrights.  Entertainment and art is no less important, valuable, or desirable than widgets.

Yes, they are. However, that's a WHOLE OTHER argument.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Uh, no. The constitutional creation of a power to create copyright and patent is a recognition that no one can own an idea, but as we wish to encourage new ideas, innovation, and creativity, we offer a time where people can benefit from the value of their idea.

No one can own an idea?  Really?  Let's think about that for a moment.

What is ownership?

I've always thought that ownership is a collection of rights protected by government.  Specifically, those are the right to control how the property is used, the right to retain profits from the property, and the right to transfer ownership to someone else.  

If this is a fair understanding of ownership, then why on earth can't ideas be owned?  We routinely apply these rights to ideas, and government enforces and protects those rights.  At least for a time.  

I would say that if no one can own an idea, then neither is it possible to own land or any physical good.  Ownership merely being rights agreed upon and protected by society, if we refute their existence when it comes to ideas, then we can equally refute their existence when it comes to physical property or land. 

[makattak]

No one can own an idea?  Really?  Let's think about that for a moment.

What is ownership?

I've always thought that ownership is a collection of rights protected by government.  Specifically, those are the right to control how the property is used, the right to retain profits from the property, and the right to transfer ownership to someone else. 

If this is a fair understanding of ownership, then why on earth can't ideas be owned?  We routinely apply these rights to ideas, and government enforces and protects those rights.  At least for a time. 

I would say that if no one can own an idea, then neither is it possible to own land or any physical good.  Ownership merely being rights agreed upon and protected by society, if we refute their existence when it comes to ideas, then we can equally refute their existence when it comes to physical property or land. 

So who owns the air you breathe?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Relevance?

[BlueStarLizzard]

you guys are so focused on the monetary implications of IP, but have barely dwelled on the philosophical ones.

A work of artisitic value has very diffrent social implications then one of technological value. It also has a difrent kind of personal value.

An artist writes a song. He plays the song, preforms it and records it. People like the song. The song has emotional/asthetic value to both the creator and the public, but is not definate in terms of meaning. The song can be interperated many ways.
Does the artist have a right to decide how the song he wrote (lets say its about a girl he loves dearly) should be played in public venues? Or who makes money of his personal declaration? I say, yes, he should have some personal control and so should his heirs. His words, his tune, thus his say about what is apprpriate and what is not. The fact that he makes money off the song is secondary.
The distributers of art are the ones really making the money, anyway. However this is getting phased out as social media is playing a part an alllwing the artists to bypas the system and release work directly, which makes they're copyrights more valueable to them and may regain them control, which is another story, but I think, is also a valid reason they should have a good portion of time in which to control their product and collect the friuts of their labor.

On the other hand, we have technollgical creations which can greatly impact human life. Guy creates a super reactor that can power the world. He builds it and makes a buttload of money. But lets say, he's a jerk. He controls his invention with an iron fist. He won't sell his design or allow it to be used, even in places where its really needed. He manages to put other power companies out of business and then has a monopoly on power. If you can't pay his fees, you lose power. you can not go to a second option, cause there is no second option. He has a monopoly on a major comodatie.
Should he have control until well after his death over something that can so greatly impact society? If a company found the cure for AIDS tomorrow, would the public at large be happy if those drugs where not avalible in a timely and affordable fasion?
the inventors should be rewarded and get their money, but society can't afford to let them have it indefinatly. Hell, 20 years is enough time for the controling factor of those two scenerios to do a lot of damage.


I'm not saying its perfect. I'm not even saying its right/fair to the inventors. But it is true.

Note: I know that this is vastly simplified. They're are many factor involved in the production of both. There are also hacks/abusers of both patent and copyright (disney is one) and that most inventions are little enough that the creator could not have that kind of impact. Like I said, its just my opinion on why such things are in place and why such things would have to be in place.
Sure, improvements could be made in the laws, but I have no issue with copyright holders getting a longer hold on their product.

[BlueStarLizzard]

So who owns the air you breathe?

Well, I can say that I do, except I imagine that everyone might dispute that and the governemt wouldn't let me, nor would society.
But the gov and society seem to think (for the most part) that I can own an idea.

[makattak]

So, by your logic bluestar, if you create something important, you have no rights to it, but if it's something you put a lot of feeling into, you do?

[makattak]

Well, I can say that I do, except I imagine that everyone might dispute that and the governemt wouldn't let me, nor would society.
But the gov and society seem to think (for the most part) that I can own an idea.

No, they don't. The government grants you the rights to an expression of an idea, but only for a time.

[BlueStarLizzard]

So, by your logic bluestar, if you create something important, you have no rights to it, but if it's something you put a lot of feeling into, you do?

You know, for someone that gets soooo upset about people not reading his entire post or blatently not acknowledging what you said, you sure do it a lot.
 

Lifes not fair. Deal with it.

[makattak]

You know, for someone that gets soooo upset about people not reading his entire post or blatently not acknowledging what you said, you sure do it a lot.
 

Lifes not fair. Deal with it.

I know you said it was extreme examples. However, your post seemed to place a great deal of importance on a personal connection to the idea.

Copyright/patent rights should be totally independent of the feelings or intentions of the copyright/patent owners and the way we feel about them.

[BlueStarLizzard]

uhhhh.. Yeah I do.

It could be because if a kitty litter company decided to use my poem "kitten love" to sell their product, i'd have a fit.

Art has a definate emotional connection that is a major part of its value. Such MUST be taken into account when decideding its legal protections and those of the artist.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Copyright/patent rights should be totally independent of the feelings or intentions of the copyright/patent owners and the way we feel about them.

Sounds like an excuse to strip the owner of his right to control his or her property. 

If we're to treat the owner as just that, as the actual actual owner, the person who gets to decide how the property is to be used, then we have no choice but to respect his feelings and intentions towards the property.

[makattak]

Sounds like an excuse to strip the owner of his right to control his or her property. 

If we're to treat the owner as just that, as the actual actual owner, the person who gets to decide how the property is to be used, then we have no choice but to respect his feelings and intentions towards the property.

No. A person's right to property should be independent of how they feel about that property or how we feel about them; the same with ownership of a copyright or patent.

It's not about feelings one way or another.

[De Selby]

The different nature of IP is simple to demonstrate:

In order to deprive you of traditional property, someone else must use force against you to take it.

In order for your IP to be anything other than a pipe dream, you must threaten and use force against everyone who has ever heard of your idea.

[Hawkmoon]

Because them having the right to demand a few bucks includes them having the right to shut down your use of the song at all. 

That stifles creativity, it does not promote it. 

How does my not granting some band permission to play MY song stifle their creativity? Seems to me it would promote creativity -- if they want to sing songs without paying, they can write ("create") their own songs.

[Hawkmoon]

Intellectual abstractions have not traditionally had any such protection and those who created them had to scramble to exploit them before others could figure out how to do so.  I am glad the COTUS provides for some time for the creator, but I am a strict constructionist in this (as in other matters) and think Congress ought to hew to the written COTUS's time limits.

What written COTUS time limits? Section 8 of the COTUS says:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

This is under the things the legislative branch is specifically authorized to do. The Constitution does not establish a time limit, it leaves it to Congress to do so. Which they have done.

[De Selby]

That's fine, but how does them singing your song affect you?  You wouldnt even notice it without some means of monitoring, and to enforce the government granted right, you must use force.

Contrast that with traditional property - all it requires is for other people to leave you alone.

When a "right" can only exist because you use force against other people, its scope and limits should be heavily scrutinized.

[Hawkmoon]

No. A person's right to property should be independent of how they feel about that property or how we feel about them; the same with ownership of a copyright or patent.

It's not about feelings one way or another.

Agreed. My property is my property, regardless of whether I love it, hate it, or don't give a darn.

However, your argument makes no sense. If it is MY property, that means *I* get to decide how much I want to charge to transfer it or rent it to another party or parties. Doesn't matter what I feel about it, or IF I feel anything about it, it's MY property. If I decide my crappy poem that doesn't rhyme is worth a million bucks, it doesn't matter on what basis I arrived at that figure. Any prospective buyer is free to engage in marketplace tactics and either buy it for my price, make a counter-offer, or walk away.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

That's fine, but how does them singing your song affect you?  You wouldnt even notice it without some means of monitoring, and to enforce the government granted right, you must use force.

So, basically you're saying it's just like when someone trespasses on my land.

Contrast that with traditional property - all it requires is for other people to leave you alone.

When a "right" can only exist because you use force against other people, its scope and limits should be heavily scrutinized.

Tell that to anyone who's ever had to deal with squatters.  Leave you alone?  Yeah, right.  They'll leave you alone when you apply some force to their keisters.