What is Digg?87 Comments
- GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -4/+40The reason intellectual property is different to real property is because intellectual property isn't property at all. Really we should use a different label but IP is used to intentionally confuse. IP is merely a limited time, state enforced, monopoly. Property requires scarcity, all property theory is based upon the idea that there is a limited amount of resources in the world. You aren't allowed to steal a chair from me because I might not be able to replace it. Property isn't about economy, it is about rights. My effort went into making the chair and I should be allowed to benefit from it. However making a copy of a copyrighted work does not remove the original copy. The original owner can still benefit.
This is always the slippery slope though. When you offer people privileges that can't be logically justified within any property system then they will keep asking for more.
Giving somebody infinite rights to something infinitely reproducible can only lead to all property being held by IP owners. Since real property is exchanged for IP it is clear that this can only be the result long term since the means to pay will not outlast what we are paying for. - asforme, on 10/11/2007, -1/+31This article does not discuss anything specific to US Law. It discusses the motivations behind creating copyright laws, and the ideas here are universal.
- juanjodic, on 10/11/2007, -4/+29Yea right, Imagine everyone paying to the owner of fire for the right to have a hot cup of coffee or a hot shower for all the eternity. This is just getting ridiculous. Humans have started to serve the interest of corporations instead of the other way around.
- tdkyo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+18Well, this forever copyright idea is from a newspaper, which is a form of intellectual property held by the NYT....
- GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14If people make bad investments that is their problem. IP is not there for them to make money, it's there to encourage them to do the work. If they make money from it great, if not my heart bleeds. Older limited term IP is about right for me, this later stuff is more about the secondary 'making more money' imperative about the primary imperative of getting the work done and released to the public as quickly as possible.
With 25 year copyrights (from time of creation) and 10 year patents people would still innovate. IP should have as small a shelf life as the market can afford. - majmcdonald, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13FTA: "It is amusing to note that some are already pointing out that Helprin's argument is a blatant copy of Mark Twain's -- and yet we doubt he paid the descendants of Mark Twain for it."
Classic. - lordmike, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12Mark Halperin is at it again... what he wants more money from his lousy books? Isn't it bad enough that he's been sucking up to right wingers for the last five years, begging them to watch ABC news... it got so bad they had to "reassign" him, since his objectivity was questioned by his obsequiousness to the hard right media.
Copyrights already last five times longer than they did 200 years ago.... enough is enough! How long does one get to profit from work that you did fifty years ago. No one gets paid for a job they did a half a century ago, yet these guys want to be paid in perpetuity. Talk about creating a new aristocracy.
Knowing Halperin's politics, I can understand why he'sd want to promote aristocracy.
Thanks,
Mike - Gustav, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7"A conspiracy-minded person might suggest that this is no coincidence, and that the best way to get stronger copyright and patent laws passed is to first get people arguing about ridiculously strong laws, and then get them to agree to "lesser" changes that are still much stronger than what we have today."
Oh no, that's not a conspiracy-minded person, that is just a mindful, critical, thorough, and well-prepared person. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6I really have to agree with the article.
If you think about it - if I sell you a gallon of milk, I have no right to tell you what to do with it. You are free to water it down, give it to your cats, whatever. If I said "You must drink it, and anyone you give a glass of milf to owes me $0.35", that's insane.
Now if I sell you a CD I made, I do have the right to tell you when, where and how to play it. God forbid you make a copy - I will put you in jail! - 15charmaxwtf, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5If anyone wants to read a similar view on IP there's a good (though long) thing here:
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf - RealHyperX, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8The title suggest that intellectual property is not real property. Interesting.
- Darkhacker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5You know on the NBC nightly news, how they have those three chimes at the beginning. That is copyrighted and NBC has actually won lawsuits where those three notes were used in that combination in certain songs. That is much worse than the birthday song in my opinion.
- emjaymj, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5@SecondGuesser
It's not that IP should not be protected, but there should definitely be a time limit. Just as telling somebody they don't own their works will stifle creativity, the same thing happens when the ability to build upon the works of others is taken away.
I don't understand the mindset of people who think its wrong for IP owners to want to be paid. If they didn't have an expectation of money, then things like film and video games, where a lot of money is required just to create them, would never get made. Copyrights are definitely justified.
The author makes one error in the assumption that IP doesn't involve scarce resources, because labor is itself a scarce resource. With his logic, the entire service industry would not be paid. If this were true, the economy would not work. Just like there is a reasonable expectation that you get paid to wait tables, there is a reasonable expectation to get paid for working on a novel - and, just like any area of the economy, the more society sees a need for your particular skill, the more you will be compensated.
I agree with you that IP should definitely be taken seriously, but if copyright lasts forever, art will get stale very quickly. - Gustav, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Heh, I enjoyed it too. Come to think of it, I'm sure the word "it" wasn't developed by Helprin. Maybe he wouldn't mind if we tracked down who owns it and makes him pay royalties. And also for every other word.
- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5*****, ran out of edit time.
One of the main concerns, I presume, about having no IP laws is that people won't make anything anymore, because it isn't worth it. The problem just really just needs an new ways to try profit. Lots of ideas are already with us, e.g. cd-keys for online play, 3d cinemas. There are billions of people on the planet that can think of new such ideas so I don't think there would be a shortage of them.
As for patents, companies try and improve their products to compete. So, if they could find a better way of doing something, they would for their own benefit. If they copy it and they compete with a lower price then that is just the market at work. Afterall, the first company would have had a short monopoly on having a headstart! The other companies would need to develop a copy (even though in most cases it probably wouldn't make sense to make a direct copy.) Wouldn't only the cheap people who make bootlegs try and copy it exactly---but even then they don't, they make cheap copies which a customer with different evaluations buys. As for patents for drugs, the cost of producing drugs is so vast now to regulations etc I think (I think- as in I've read in a couple of places but not really read much on it) that drug companies try to purposely make the drugs patentable, so it costs even more to develop. - ahhell, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4A glass of milf would be worth WAY more than $0.35.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4sorry that was meant as a joke...
but when i saw it in black and white it looked harsh and troll-ish
better your kid has you than your IP. - GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4That's the crux of the issue though. Property deals with the individual items. IP deals with the rights to create such items. It is not about property but the right to create and distribute property. This is another reason why it is a monopoly and not property. It is also why comparisons to property are meaningless.
The only argument they have is that the labels are similar. If I relabelled 'Sex with Jessica Alba' as 'Alba air' then under this argument I should ask why I don't have an endless free supply of 'Alba air' like I do normal air. Air has nothing to do with sex with Jessica Alba, state granted monopolies have little to do with property. - GRTWHT, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4"A conspiracy-minded person might suggest that this is no coincidence, and that the best way to get stronger copyright and patent laws passed is to first get people arguing about ridiculously strong laws, and then get them to agree to "lesser" changes that are still much stronger than what we have today."
OK, I must be the conspiracy-minded person referred to, because I believe the author hit upon the actual agenda here. I suspect that Helprin is the complete idiot that he appears to be, but is inadvertently working to help The Copyright Alliance advance their plans.
They would be thrilled to have eternal rights and infinite ownership of all current and future ideas (in effect ownership of all thoughts, plans and dreams until the end of time, since anything can be shown to be derived from something prior), but will settle for the oil company method of taking more each year, while using the extremist's perspectives to show how they are "compromising".
Remember: every time they "compromise", they gain a little more and we lose a little more. - BDub7004, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5@RealHyperx
Legally speaking, "real property" refers to what is commonly known as real estate. Other forms of property are personal property. - Langford, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3If they were to do something as absurd as extend copyright to forever, then it's only natural that it must be extended back retroactively to the dead. This would mean that many copyrights we now recognize would have to be revoked because of infringement with older work. Imagine a company like Disney for example. The bulk of their fortune was built on older works taken from the public domain. Permanent copyrights would prevent a "new Disney" from ever appearing, and a retroactive copyright would kill the existing Disney company.
I suppose this is why large companies would be in favor of permanent copyrights for themselves, but not in favor of giving it to their predecessors. If we want to keep permanent copyrights a dead issue, we need to make sure it is always accompanied by retroactive copyrights, so that these large companies will fear the consequences of their potential selfishness. - GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3People can profit from the GPL, they just have to work within it's framework. The GPL is based upon the belief that in an ideal world public domain would be the best option. However this isn't the ideal world and in order to protect freedom from copyright we must turn copyright against itself. This is what the GPL does. It is a license that uses copyright to produce a result contrary to the normal result of copyright (i.e. normally copyright restricts the availability of a work, the GPL ensures it is always available).
- fatdog789, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3The factual content is public domain since you can't copyright facts. You can, however, copyright the particular way of expressing those facts. However, with news, the fair use exemption is generally so broad that the only restriction on use is that which is directly harmful and contrary to the interests of the author.
- thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Why it's different???
It's an IDEA.... not PHYSICAL PROPERTY - GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3My apologies to Ms. Alba for using her in such a crude analogy. Now where's my free Alba air.
- Calcipher, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4@SecondGuesser - Who said anything about no rights to control their works? It would seem that the argument is not that they shouldn't have some rights over their IP but, more, that they shouldn't have perpetual rights. This is a huge difference. Given that TFA talked almost exclusively about the difference between perpetual rights and limited rights, I'm surprised you didn't get the point.
- crc77, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4"Consider the amounts spent on R&D at companies like Microsoft, Adobe, Pfizer, other software and pharmaceutical companies.. how fair is it that they put out the risk of investing in new ideas, new innovation, and new processes and allow others to simply "copy" the result of which and benefit from them."
That is, of course, assuming that their "innovations" are truly original. In some cases they are, but in others they are just extensions of existing ideas, or even blatant rip-offs if the original source hasn't had the foresight to patent it first. - Krigan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Copyright holders have far more rights than property owners. For example it is lawful to buy a chair or a table from a manufacturer, copy it, and sell the copies, but it is not lawful to do so if the work is copyrighted. Manufacturers and other property owners have less rights than record labels and other copyright holders.
Any copyright holder claiming to receive more rights because of the similarity between "property" and "intellectual property" is always conveniently forgiving he has MORE rights than property owners. - CaptainStone, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3IP - what a term. Makes me think of a two year old who is learning to pee in a toilet. Goes to his parents proudly and claims, " I pee, I pee, I pee in big bowl."
Copyright holders need to be reminded once something is published to the public, that work is no longer their property. End of story. The only thing they own is the privilege (not to be confused with a right) to reproduce copies. Maybe the term should be renamed copy-privilege.
I would like to see terms reset to the original 14 years plus one renewal. If they forget to renew, tough! - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2That's AWESOME!
I actually work for ASCAP.
FTW = "If you have seen someone singing Happy Birthday in a restaurant, a park, or at a school, you should tell ASCAP so that they can arrange for a license. If you are an offender, you should apologize and offer to pay whatever is due — a nickel, a quarter, a dollar — whatever ASCAP demands."
You must all pay me $1 bitches!! - Homunculiheaded, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"how fair is it that they put out the risk of investing in new ideas, new innovation, and new processes and allow others to simply "copy" the result of which and benefit from them."
However if you look at a lot of the risker more innovative things that are being created a lot is being done at research universities and government funded contractors and researchers. A lot of risk is actually your tax dollars. Yes the companies you mentioned aren't necessarily receiving tons government funding but there are many that benefit directly from university research, which takes larger risks and a lot of it, at least partially, on your tax dollar. Additionally a lot of really cutting edge stuff is being done by government contractors.
look at MIT, I'm sure we can think of a few things that have come out of there that have effected research, well MIT is (or at least was last time I check) the largest receiver of government funded research. (to be fair it's also the largest funder of private research money)
Look at the ARPANET, produced by a private government contractor. These are the high risk innovations which build the ground work for the companies you mentioned, they benefit free of cost because you, paid for them. - catalysis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"different from"
/grammar police - RickWolff, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The name of the article (as presented to Digg, anyway) is "Why Intellectual Property Is Different Than Real Property". Neiltc13 would like to re-name it "Why Intellectual Property Is Different to Real Property...". I say it should be renamed "Why Intellectual Property Is Different FROM Real Property".
Sorry. I couldn't let it go. - JQP123, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@crc77
"This means that the copyright holder can use their copy-rights for financial purposes if they want, as well as preventing other people from profiting from their work."
You mean like in the GPL? - Fartag, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@GMorgan
The slippery slope here you mention does show the difficulty of trying to treat information as property. A lot of the related problems we've had for over a hundred years is from the conflict between the beneficial spread of information (a more informed public...) vs. paying those that create the works. The problem has _never_ been to limit the distribution of the work if the originator has been paid for it, but many have been convinced this is the only solution probably because it used to be easier to treat information like a product since it was naturally limited by poor copying techniques. These are now, of course, replaced with technical and legal restrictions, DRM, DMCA and criminalized copyright violations, harsh things because it's _so_ easy to copy information now.
Suppose one day though we create a Google-like site that indexes every known piece of non-private information ever created by mankind. Suppose it helps people to search and fully access all of this information. Suppose also there's an "entry fee" to it that's covered through taxes (similar to tax based roadway system, pay for upkeep, etc. and drive anywhere). Now people can access what they want, they can help decide which works have merit and support them by determining which things get what amount of taxes (maybe in some automated fashion). Other groups can help decide for specialized information like research, journals, etc. A lot of details to work out to prevent abuse and other trouble.
But, copyright without distribution restrictions is possible and the Internet seems to be the key to it. With such a system you can share every newspaper, movie, magazine, journal article, mp3, software and there's no need for archaic distribution limitations since the ability for anyone to access these things is there already. And all of those strange complicating symptoms from some definite underlying problem, the DMCA, DRM, etc. just fall away because they're unnecessary, and you're no longer a criminal for merely sharing information. - paidhima, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3@SecondGuesser
The article doesn't posit that there should be no copyright law, no intellectual property, and no compensation given to people for innovative ideas. It simply says that your control of that idea shouldn't stretch into perpetuity. If you came up with this idea and copyrighted it, you would have every right to be compensated for it. That doesn't mean your descendant 200 years from now should have that same right. - fyngyrz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3From techdirt:
"However, when it comes to infinite resources, there's simply no need to worry about efficient allocation -- since anyone can have a copy."
This is where Techdirt's argument fails. These resources are not naturally infinite. In fact, they are naturally non-existent until someone is *motivated* to create them. Money is the most flexible motivator (as it can be turned directly into anything from college to a night out to savings to food and shelter, etc) and so a causal relationship between the creation of these resources and money is both natural and to be expected.
Treating the resources as "infinite" and copying them without compensating the producer(s) will result in a reduction of production, with resources then only coming from producers who are willing to accept abstract rewards such as recognition, emotional gratification, and other similar less- or non-negotiable means.
I'm not saying this puts the answer squarely in the direct-pay-to-play camp, but clearly, the issue isn't as simple as Techdirt wants to make it out to be.
My .02 - Fartag, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2By the FSM I apologize for the text around the middle of that 3rd uber-sentence. Two sentences crashed together during the 2 minute edit. :-(
- enicholas, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2So if a famous musician steals your song, starts selling it as their own, and goes multi-platinum while you're still performing in the subway for spare change... that's okay, because at least you both still have the song?
- mousky, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1With or without copyrights, there is nothing preventing you son from owning your IP after your death. Just because copyright and patents expire, does not mean that ownership of the original IP expires. Tylenol and Aspirin are two example of products that available in generic form, yet they are still manufactured McNeil and Bayer, respectively.
- mastermc99, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2That totally misses the point. While I tend to agree in limited copyrights/patents to encourage innovation the point of my comment merely was that real property exists and can be stolen by transference of possession whereas intellectual "property" can not be stolen but rather copied. One can not truly steal intellectual property.
- bsiviglia9, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1If you had a magical box that could infinitely reproduce enough loaves and fishes to feed the world, would you use it, even if it was illegal to do so?
- enharmonix, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@GMorgan: Wow. That is seriously the most logical thing I have read on digg in ages. You just made a better argument than techdirt. (And in case nobody's told you, Gmorgan is also the name of an ALSA-based MIDI rhythm Debian package, so I feel like already know you. Heh.) Cheers.
- crc77, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Copyright is basically about being recognised as being the owner or originator of some piece of work, whether it's creative, technical, whatever, and being able to control the republication or distribution of that work. This means that the copyright holder can use their copy-rights for financial purposes if they want, as well as preventing other people from profiting from their work.
The problem with copyright and patents is that in some cases they are something that only one person or group would ever have come up with in that form, e.g. Beethoven's symphonies or something, whereas other things are the next logical progression of existing ideas and inventions. You have to question whether it is really something nobody else could have come up with or whether it would just be a matter of time.
For example, take patents on lightbulbs - can you imagine if every incandescent lightbulb made meant a royalty had to get paid to Thomas Edison's family? It would be ludicrous, because not only was he one of several people who invented them (look up Sir Joseph Swan if you're interested), but it was also something built upon the work of many that came before them. I agree with the article totally - granting copyright or patents in perpetuity would be a disaster. A time-limited copyright or patent is a good compromise between no protection and too much protection. - ogleby, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Geddy Lee of Rush!!!
Of salesmen?
Of salesmen!!!!!!!!!!!! - infiniphonic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I have my own music and film IP to look after.
I don't think copyrights should last forever.
Should my son own my works after i die? I would like for him to.
It cuts both ways. - SecondGuesser, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1What if I choose to sell it to someone? If I sold a painting to Amazon.com for display in their lobby, don't they have the right to own that painting forever? Why are digital works treated any different? If I write a song and sell it to Walmart to use as their jingle, they should own it forever, since it was my property to sell and Walmart's to own. You can't just take it from them because you think it should be free to others a decade or a century from now.
- teaguehopkins, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Helprin = pwned
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I'snt credit the original intellectual property?
- mabhatter, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1This is about making copyright LONGER... NOT!
Copyright doesn't need to be longer, it's a govt grant period. What's going on is that companies that already produced work and reaped benefit under the old rules want the rules CHANGED yet again to keep the same old products locked up making them money. Since the late 60's there's been a constant push that making companies "give up" their precious "IP" is somehow wrong. Nobody is forcing media companies to give up anything. The government granted writ of exclusivity is wearing off, now the natural order of information exchange between citizens can take place without unlawful govt interference. Copyrights were good at 14 or even 50 years... but the current change to 95+ years is longer than the average lifespan. What the CORPORATIONS want is to become the new feudal system. They want royalty for ALL recording for ALL songwriting played in public... even YOUR OWN... you can't get your money unless you swear "fealty" to one of their corporate sponsors.
Call it what it is, the artists performed their works, got the full compensation, and now the payments are DONE! Just like your's or my paycheck the money stops.... it's a fact of life. At this point the money doesn't even go to the actual artist. but to their managers and publishers... who want to use the leverage to force more artists to sign with them and keep the ball rolling. If stuff from the 1920's was to go public again, it would wipe large cuts of "IP" out and put famous franchises into the PD for anybody to resurrect and write new stories about. I think famous characters like the Mouse could be protected from NEW development by trademark... but it shouldn't stop reproduction of the old stuff. -
Show 51 - 85 of 85 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is