Copyright

[280plus]

They are fundamentally similar - it's the concept or idea that's protected, not any particular physical manifestation.  

A copyright is just a Government monopoly.  It's the same as a mining monopoly, a railroad monopoly, or any other such government prohibition on people doing something they otherwise would be perfectly capable of doing with their own property.

Doesn't a monopoly require that the monopolizer profit exclusively from the monopoly? How do copyrights produce profit for the government? When did the .gov monopolize mining or railroading?

I think a rational starting point for copyright reform would be to adopt two basic principles:

1.  No copyright should be granted unless the evidence shows that granting copyright under the circumstances, and for any given amount of time, is a proven method of promoting creativity; and

Why? You seem to forget the fact that people gotta eat, people SHOULD profit from their work and if the work that provides for you is of an intellectual nature protecting it so that it can continue to provide for you is a basic right I would think.

2.  Any person bringing a lawsuit to enforce copyright should be required to prove damages, just like any other litigant.

I do believe that if the plaintiff can somehow prove monetary damages they would certainly introduce evidence to that effect but I believe proving that the defendant was in fact selling unauthorized copies would indicate some kind of damage was incurred. Then it's up to the court to decide how much.

Besides, noone is barred from reproducing anybody elses work. They are only required to pay the originator a fee to compensate that originator for use of his or her idea(s). The laws provide a legal basis for them to do so.I don't have a problem with that. From my perspective I'd argue that the patent people should lobby for changing the law to allow for longer patent length. 20 years does seem short but then again, in 20 years your invetion might join the ranks of old POS so nobody really cares about reproducing it anymore, they're all on to newr and better things MEANWHILE. I could copy Hamlet, put it on a shelf and chances are someone will buy it. I'm starting to think thast's not a bad idea.  

[280plus]

from the front page over at Yahoo...

The camcorder is one of many tech devices that are quickly becoming obsolete.

I got an idea, you start a camcorder manufacturing company, I'll start a company printing out of copyright classic books and we'll see how sales go.  

[De Selby]

Exclusive profit = copyright.  The .gov granted monopolies in past times (as did many European governments) to promote industrial development. Copyrights and patents are the exact same economic device.

The key feature of a copyright isn't the ability to profit from your work - it's the ability to ban other people from doing the same work without paying you.  They can't produce the same book, play the same song, or draw the same picture even if they have the means and inclination because you have a monopoly over that expression.


Note that copyright owners don't have to licence anyone to reproduce - they could just decide they don't want anyone else to have that knowledge/work and keep it from the world.  It is not a compensatory system; there's usually nothing tangible enough that could even be used to justify a compensation claim. 

[280plus]

The key feature of a copyright isn't the ability to profit from your work - it's the ability to ban other people from doing the same work without paying you.

I disagree, it most certainly is the main feature of a copyright. It is a copyright's only purpose. Noone is banned from using my work, they are only required to share with me the profit that THEY drive from MY work. And most people have no problem with that. Going back to the whole people gotta eat thing.

You seem to be grasping at anything that might seem like it remains as a way to prove your point while ignoring the parts of my argument that are harder to refute. Again, camcorders = becoming obsolete vs Hamlet = timeless. Apples do not equal oranges no matter how hard you try to make them do so.

I do not want you obsolete POS camcorder and neither does anyone else therefore I have no desire to copy and sell them. "Catcher in the Rye" however I would certainly both buy and consider reprinting and selling because people WILL buy it. (I chose "CitR" this time because I'm guessing the copyright is still good on that one.)

I say again, your argument seems to lean me more in the direction of wanting longer patent periods rather than shorter copyrights. 

[makattak]

I disagree, it most certainly is the main feature of a copyright. It is a copyright's only purpose. Noone is banned from using my work, they are only required to share with me the profit that THEY drive from MY work. And most people have no problem with that. Going back to the whole people gotta eat thing.

You seem to be grasping at anything that might seem like it remains as a way to prove your point while ignoring the parts of my argument that are harder to refute. Again, camcorders = becoming obsolete vs Hamlet = timeless. Apples do not equal oranges no matter how hard you try to make them do so.

I do not want you obsolete POS camcorder and neither does anyone else therefore I have no desire to copy and sell them. "Catcher in the Rye" however I would certainly both buy and consider reprinting and selling because people WILL buy it. (I chose "CitR" this time because I'm guessing the copyright is still good on that one.)

I say again, your argument seems to lean me more in the direction of wanting longer patent periods rather than shorter copyrights. 

Ok, if Hamlet is timeless, why aren't the heirs of Shakespeare getting royalties?

Also, improving Hamlet: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086373/

You don't seem to be grasping that we already agree with your argument that people should be allowed to profit from their intellectual property. There's absolutely no argument (from me or DeSelby) that copyright should exist.

We are arguing that ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY YEARS (life+ 70 years) is far, far, far, too long. Would not most of the profit from an idea be extracted in 14 years, and, if not, definitely in 28? (This is how the founding fathers set it up, 14 years of copyright with another 14 years available with a one-time renewal.) We stifle creativity with the stupidity of how long we lock up works under copyright for over a hundred years.

So, yes, people should profit from their works. No, they shouldn't have control of their idea FOREVER.

[280plus]

Well, I argue it is not too long. Can I still print and sell Catcher in the Rye today and expect it to sell? Yes I can! Can I produce a camcorder now and expect it to sell? Not necessarily.

Um, the copyright on Hamlet ran out a couple (hundred) years ago.

related article and you're going to love this one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/business/media/28eminem.html?_r=1&ref=music

“This is life-changing,” said Joyce Moore, the wife of Sam Moore of Sam & Dave, the duo that had hits in the 1960s like “Soul Man.” “If we were being paid a nickel a download, as opposed to 35 cents — that’s a huge amount of money for a guy that is on a fixed income or has to run up and down the road at 75 years old.”

Although current hits get more attention, older music still represents a huge portion of overall music sales, and over time durable hits can rack up significant sales. Last year there were 648.5 million downloads of “catalog” singles in the United States, meaning songs more than 18 months old, compared with 523 million for current tracks, according to Nielsen SoundScan.

How about older camcorders? Are they outproducing the newfangled stuff? Why shouldn't the owner and heirs benefit? So you can instead?

Sorry Charley, grab a TS chit and take it to the Chaplain. 

[280plus]

Better yet, take 4 years like I did and put yourself together a piece of intellectual property, then tell me again how you feel about copyright laws.

[makattak]

How about older camcorders? Are they outproducing the newfangled stuff? Why shouldn't the owner and heirs benefit? So you can instead?

Sorry Charley, grab a TS chit and take it to the Chaplain. 

Actually, Hamlet was never UNDER copyright. Many people argue that we'd never have a Shakespeare without copyright, but history argues against them. We HAD Shakespeare without copyright.

You seem fixated on computer technology. They are becoming obsolete quickly, yes. Most technology does not work that way. For example, the bobber in your toilet. Has that had some massive technological advancement that I missed, making the old one obsolete? Yet, it's not under patent protections any longer. The heirs of that inventor are getting SCREWED!

I know you've convinced yourself that your type of intellectual property is SO MUCH MORE VALUABLE than those patent holders who can't create anything timeless, but you're wrong. The purpose of copyrights and patents is not to give the holders the right to extract the entire value of intellectual property. It is to encourage more innovation and creativity.

I'm curious as to why 28 years wouldn't be long enough for you?

[makattak]

Better yet, take 4 years like I did and put yourself together a piece of intellectual property, then tell me again how you feel about copyright laws.

Hmmm... 4 years of work, 28 years to profit off it...

I'd take that deal.

[280plus]

You must have missed the part about taking your TS chit to the Chaplain.  

[Hawkmoon]

The key feature of a copyright isn't the ability to profit from your work - it's the ability to ban other people from doing the same work without paying you.  They can't produce the same book, play the same song, or draw the same picture even if they have the means and inclination because you have a monopoly over that expression.

You seem to forget that if I hold a copyright, I have already done the work. Why should I NOT be allowed to earn a return for MY labor? Nobody is prevented from printing copies of my work, they just have to pay me a few pennies for each copy they sell. Profit? Wake up! The publisher makes a much greater profit on each copy of a book sold than the author.

Play the same song? The copyright doesn't exist because someone played a song. The copyright exists because someone WROTE a song, and should be compensated when other people make money from using the author's creation. The Beatles wrote most or all of their own material, but many other musical artists don't. For example, te song "Early Mornin' Rain" was written by Gordon Lightfoot. He performs it, but I'd suggest that the song is much more famous for having been performed by Peter, Paul and Mary. It was featured on at least one and probably two of their albums, as well as in many of their live performances. THEY were paid for every copy of the albums sold, and THEY were paid for every concert at which they sang that song. Why shouldn't they pass along a few pennies of their PROFIT to the guy who actually wrote the song?

[French G.]

I need a cover pic for a car enthusiast magazine. Hey Monkeyleg, that crappy old Jaguar is obsolete and you've probably already made your money off of that pic so I think I'll use your pic. I know I could take as good a pic with my point and shoot but hey yours is already out there and you won't mind right? I asked some jerk that calls himself a professional and he wanted $4000 for one stinking cover photo. Like he thought up the film camera or something!  



In a serious vein, that is probably one of the finest pieces of car photography I've ever seen. I don't know that life +70 is unreasonable. Maybe life + 20-50 if you wanted to shorten it. Maybe. Check Jill Faulkner Summers. Nobody really bought her old man's stuff while he was alive. She is not really living high on the hog. I know she did not produce the work, but she certainly had a bigger investment in it than say some Chinese book printer. My wife published a small book of poetry when she was 16. She is not known yet as a fiction or literary writer and of course no one buys unknown books of poetry. So when she gets her big break in the next two decades should an unrelated 3rd party be able to cash in on her name recognition and re-print that book? That's how a 14 year copyright would go down. Maybe we wait for one of those overnight music stars, you know the ones that wrote songs for 25 years before we heard them on the radio. Lets go find their obscure stuff from 2 decades ago and sell it because surely they made money on it by now right?

Here's a byproduct of too short protections. And I'm sure Pharmacology will hop in to correct me. Drug patents are ridiculously short. They are for 20 years but are applied for prior to clinical trials. So, a company spends ten years of FDA fiery hoop jumping and 800 million to get a drug to market. They now have 10 years to recover their investment, cost of promotion, actual cost of production and distribution, and some of that evil capitalist profit. And poof, drugs cost $3 a pill. Then you throw in the fact that due to worldwide socialist medicine that they aren't exactly pulling down huge profits in many parts of the world.

So yay, cheap generic drugs. The copying thief did no R&D, took no shots from the government over product safety, didn't even have to pay to get the word out about this wonder drug, but boy can they sell it. Quick, let's lobby Congress to dilute packaging laws so we don't have to label for country of origin. And you know the sad part? Due to what I think is too much gov't regulation, too many malpractice land sharks, and a short patent I end up often buying generic OTC because I'm broke. I know it's wrong, but I do it.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

A copyright is just a Government monopoly.  

Uh, no.  Ownership != monopoly.  

Copyright isn't a monopoly any more than home ownership is a monopoly.

And ALL property is protected by the government one way or another, so nothing special about copyright in that regard.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Hmmm... 4 years of work, 28 years to profit off it...

I'd take that deal.

Some real world experience in the engineering world my correct that opinion.

 

[280plus]

One of the reasons I did what I did was so that maybe there'd be a little something left behind by me that will help my kids and their kids after I'm gone. So yep, I sure do agree with my heirs being able to continue to profit from my work long after I'm gone and for as long as possible. You do know they only RECENTLY boosted that from life plus 50 to life plus 70 but that was because peoples is living longer these days.

[makattak]

Uh, no.  Ownership != monopoly.  

Copyright isn't a monopoly any more than home ownership is a monopoly.

And ALL property is protected by the government one way or another, so nothing special about copyright in that regard.

No, what is special about it is that it is non-rivalrous. If I were to use your intellectual property, I do not prevent you nor anyone else from using it.

That's WHY we have special laws for intellectual property. Otherwise, isn't possession nine-tenths of the law? Oh, that's right, everyone on earth could still possess the same intellectual property at once.

The monopoly is granted on the rights to use that property.

Some real world experience in the engineering world my correct that opinion.

 

Maybe so, but I'm still curious as to why 28 years isn't long enough.

For example, does anyone know why "It's a Wonderful Life" is one of the most popular movies around Christmastime now?

[280plus]

Because people still watch it. But then again, people still flush the toilet too. 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

No, what is special about it is that it is non-rivalrous. If I were to use your intellectual property, I do not prevent you or anyone else from using it.

Sez you.  

If it's my property, I will decide whether or not your use of it interferes with mine, not you.  You do not get to arbitrarily decide that what you're doing with my stuff is really no bother to me and that I won't have a problem with it.

Crikes, this is as bad as the leftists who think they know better than me how I should spend my own money, or how I should live my life.  News flash: What's best for me and mine is not subject to outside opinion.

That's WHY we have special laws for intellectual property. Otherwise, isn't possession nine-tenths of the law? Oh, that's right, everyone on earth could still possess the same intellectual property at once.

The monopoly is granted on the rights to use that property.

Property != possession.

You're an economist, so you should understand that ownership isn't merely about possession, and that neither possession nor ownership represent monopoly.

If possession or exclusive use make for a monopoly, then I exercise a monopoly every time I get into my car or decide where I'm going to drive in it.

[280plus]

You monopolize your CAR!?! You bastard! 

 

[280plus]

If it's my property, I will decide whether or not your use of it interferes with mine, not you.  You do not get to arbitrarily decide that what you're doing with my stuff is really no bother to me and that I won't have a problem with it.

musicians fir example are very serious about this including things like TV using their songs in particular commercials they may not care for and going back to the whole you need their permission to modify their songs. For example Wierd Al must get prior permission to parody and release all those tunes he's done over. He can record a parody but must get pernmission before he can release it.

[makattak]

Sez you. 

If it's my property, I will decide whether or not your use of it interferes with mine, not you.  You do not get to arbitrarily decide that what you're doing with my stuff is really no bother to me and that I won't have a problem with it.

I don't think you know what non-rivalrous means.

Seriously, I'm not trying to screw people out of being rewarded for their intellectual labor. I just don't understand why the intellectual labor of songs, books, pictures, and the like are SO MUCH MORE VALUABLE than the intellectual labor of designing motors, wheels, gears, drugs, and the like.

We grant 20 years to people's intellectual labor in patent law. Why is 28 years of copyright far too little? Patent owners don't get life+ 70 years. Should all drugs be under patent for 120 years? The drug designers invested a great amount of time, why shouldn't they be able to extract the full value of their intellectual labor?

Is it because we realize patent work actually is important and although we grant copyright holders so much longer, it's only because we know their work isn't all that important and we can thus indulge this as a society?

[Hawkmoon]

We are arguing that ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY YEARS (life+ 70 years) is far, far, far, too long. Would not most of the profit from an idea be extracted in 14 years, and, if not, definitely in 28? (This is how the founding fathers set it up, 14 years of copyright with another 14 years available with a one-time renewal.) We stifle creativity with the stupidity of how long we lock up works under copyright for over a hundred years.

So, yes, people should profit from their works. No, they shouldn't have control of their idea FOREVER.

120 years is a bit short of "forever." And only you seems to be advancing the notion that life + 70 years equals 120. It could probably more easily be 71.

And how does a copyright in any way stifle creativity? I'm an architect, so my designs are protected (in theory) by copyright. So I design a bank branch. My design for that branch of that bank is copyrighted -- either I own the rights, or I assign them to my client. How does this in any way restrict another architect from creatively coming up with a different design for a branch of a different bank?

You seem to not understand what a copyright is. You wrote, "No, they shouldn't have control of their idea FOREVER." Under copyright law, the copyright holder doesn't have any control over the idea. What is copyrighted is the specific expression of the idea. Take the cowboy author, Louis Lamour. He wrote probably hundreds of books, all with pretty much the same basic idea. Other authors, such as Zane Grey, also wrote a lot of books with the same underlying idea. Louis' copyrights didn't in anyway prevent any other author from writing a book about a wandering cowpoke who saved a town from a greedy railroad baron. All his copyrights protected were the specific words he used in specific books. And Louis Lamour is a good example of why copyright terms were extended. He lived long enough to actually see the copyrights expire on some of his early short stories, and to see unauthorized editions of HIS short stories being printed and sold by small publishers who didn't pay him a penny for using his creations. Are you going to argue that that's fair?

[280plus]

Yup, if I crap the bed tomoorow that's exactly what I'd get, 71 years. 

We grant 20 years to people's intellectual labor in patent law. Why is 28 years of copyright far too little?

If I were to step outside of the box a bit I might say that the intellectual property people lobbied themselves a better deal? That IS an interesting question. It is what it is but WHY?

[makattak]

120 years is a bit short of "forever." And only you seems to be advancing the notion that life + 70 years equals 120. It could probably more easily be 71.

I am. Given that life expectany is 75+ and the most valuable intellectual property (and also, the most popular) tend to be created by people in their 20's and 30's, 120 years is a pretty good estimate of the normal length of copyright.

I'm using it as an estimate, though. If you'll note, I keep coming back to 28 years as my suggestion (deferring to the founding fathers), so even 70 would be far too long.

[makattak]

If I were to step outside of the box a bit I might say that the intellectual property people lobbied themselves a better deal? That IS an interesting question. It is what it is but WHY?

That is exactly the case. DeSelby has it completely right here:

Actually, after a certain amount of time, yes - if copyright law were 500 years ago what it is today we might not have shakespeare or any number of classics of our language. 

The purpose of copyright was originally to let people recover the year or two or three writing - not to give absolute legal control over a story that, over time, might take a thousand different paths in a culture. 

The amazing thing is that before all the corporate lawyers got involved, the position I've just put forth was uncontroversial.  If you went back 500 years and tried to stop someone from singing your song, you'd have been treated like a child crying "don't copy me" at law.

Copyright is not something that's traditionally been treated as property.  It was invented by the same people who brought us Government monopolies, and has become what it is today largely because of the Disney corporation's demands.   It ought to be treated as such.